fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

quote:

---

'Belong' does not mean 'in.'

---

Yes it does. Your statement is false: belongs = to be in, as of not being out.

quote:

---

What are 'rights' is not what is 'right.'

---

Yes it is, with no other meaning possible. Rights = right to be by virtue of that right. I note you have no alternative meaning of it, only a rejection. This is my house by virtue of my rights. The UN understood what this means too.

quote:

---

What is 'suffering' is not 'sufferance.' Do you need a dictionary?

---

I don't need a dictionary. I fully understand Churchill's comment: it is in total and wholesale antithesis of your description, and is represented only by my post.

quote:

---

The embarrassment is all yours.

---

And what, pray tell, did you understand of Churchill's quote - seeing you pointed to my usage of it as as fraudulent?

quote:

---

Then don't use quotes.
For someone who insists that speach must be of divine origin you are sure flippant about its proper usage.

---

My usage was correct, with or w/o quotes, with no alternative meaning. As it is, I never used the word quote, but had I done that, it would still be fine, having accurately paraphrased it.There is a strong deflection to the grammar retreat, instead of the primal applicable factor - but here too my grammar is correct.

Churchill writes:

quote:

---

"But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish
people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance."
Winston Churchill, 1922

​

So you grossly paraphrased and implied a quote. But hey, it's lying for Jesus so okay, right?

---

I see no lieing, misrepresentation and no grammatical or comprehension problems with my post. Chruchill was describing his premise in the context of two seperate states in Palestine, giving his reasoning why the British Balfour pledge was now abandoned. Churchill also said in this context:'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS'The Balfour Dec itself also describes the historical connection of Jews with Palestine - thus the reference to RIGHTS of the Jews and Palestine. IOW, this was not limited to an act of sympathy or sufferings.Of note here also, the term Palestinians was at this time exclusively applied to Jews. It was the 'PALESTINIANS' [Jews] who faught under Briton in the W.W. 11 Coalition; as reported in THE PALESTINIAN POST [now called the Jerusalem Post]. Today's muslim Palestinians hated this name then as they do Zionists, and were allied with the Nazis.

quote:

---

You answer me by going and doing it again??!!!

---

Glad you like it - its one of Churchill's most famous lines.

quote:

---

IaJ, time after time at EvC you have been found to misrepresent truth, falsify data, misquote people and continue to repeat things that have been shown to be wrong. Whether talking about history or the Bible, the pattern is the same.

---

My understanding here is, I should not have applied 'quotation' marks on what I paraphrased and posited as a statement in context of the post. My further understanding is there was no misrepresent truth, falsify data, misquote people and continue to repeat things that have been shown to be wrong.To summarise my input on this prophesy thread, I stated three - and no one else has been vindicated here. Next time, I will embarrass you by applying quotations and/or the term paraphrased. This will cause you to examine the essence of what is being said.

The name Palestinian predates the Balfour, and was resurrected by Rome, exclusively upon the Jews. I guess you are talking about another Planet?

quote:

---

Also note that the term "National Home" and not "State" was used. There is no intent for Jews to create a separate Nation State in the Balfour Declaration.

---

No sir. 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is nothing else but a sovereign state. It was affirmed by the UN as such, including the term 'JEWISH STATE'. Israel was re-established legally - more legally than any other M/E or European state. And there was no muslim Pals at this time [fact] till Arafat emerged. of co, I am referring to the 3rd rock from the sun only. I don't post falsehoods.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Which has nothing to do with my post.

---

It has. You used the name palestinian.

quote:

---

No sir. 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is nothing else but a sovereign state.

​

Sorry but you are once again simply making shit up. What is so amazing is I actually posted the content of the Balfour Declaration in IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation. (Message 179) that you are currently responding to. Please point out where the term 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is found?

---

I answered correctly: NH = soveriegn state [no other meaning pos]. I offered proof: the UN Resolution. I also said that Israel was established more legally than any other nation, yet denied more than any other. If you have a problem about Israel being a legally established sovereign state, this is not surprising. Take it up with the UN.

quote:

---

Saladin was a Muslim Palestinian and there were many Muslims living in Palestine.

---

Muslims lived in this region, but not muslim palestinians. Please show us proof Saladin was referred to as a Palestinian, or the arab muslims were referred as such prior to Arafat. Considering that jews were in dispersal, you should have 1000s of such evidence from muslim and/or christian, jewish, roman writings. I ask for just 'ONE'.

quote:

---

Further, the Balfour Declaration specifically states "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...".

---

Yes, this is encumbent on all nations, including those in Europe and the M/E, but nowhere better seen than in Israel - even with those holding unconditional death to you doctrines. It does not make negated the UN Motion on any level, but only enforces this is the sovereign and historical homeland of the Jew: 'Jewish state' being clearly mentioned in the UN preamble! You are confusing Israel with the Islamic doctrine: DOGS AND JEWS FORBIDDEN IN JERUSALEM, HEBRON, JORDAN, GAZA, AND 57 OTHER ISLAMIC STATES. Moses was a Muslim and Jesus a Palestinian: two historical and geographical impossibilities, and Israel is an affront to two other religions - as if this was not the only applicable factor. Whatever turns you on.

quote:

---

The UN has NOTHING to do with the Balfour Decision, did not even exist at that time.

---

Because I am not playing semantic manipulation games. The UN was called the League of nations previously. The balfour dec was enshrined in the new UN: when Jordan was created, the UN first had to recognise the Balfour mandate, else Jordan could not be extricated from Palestine. This occured.

quote:

---

I answered correctly: NH = soveriegn state [no other meaning pos].

​

I'm sorry but you did not say NH but rather National Homeland. Trying to pretend you said something else is simply dishonest. I even connected you to IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation. (Message 179) where I posted the FULL content of the Balfour Declaration. I will repeat it here in case you missed it.

---

Looks like you pick this up in our own semantical preference. Both home and homeland have the same meaning here, and have a sovereign state meaning in its context. Its proof is the UN Motion Resolution's wording: that office was not confused as you seem to be. There were jews living in palestine w/o pause for 4000 years, including the past 2000 years: the terms you so abuse have no other meaning than how I have used it. The Creation of Jordan called for two *states* in Palestine.Re: it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in PalestineThis was made prior to Jordan's creation, a state which currently violates that statement by forbidding Jews entry, as do all Islamic *new* states created by the Brits, but which, unlike Israel, have no historical borders, except that of oil. And which you underlined for attention. Hello there?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The UN was called the League of nations previously.

​

I'm sorry but that is yet another simply false statement.

---

False? It's quite common knowledge. How can one lie about a factual item:

quote:

---

United Nations History
Origins
The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace the League of Nations was first stated officially on Oct. 30, 1943, in the Moscow Declaration, issued by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR.
United Nations | Infoplease

---

quote:

---

The balfour dec was enshrined in the new UN: when Jordan was created, the UN first had to recognise the Balfour mandate, else Jordan could not be extricated from Palestine.

​

I'm sorry but that is yet ANOTHER simply false statement. Jordan existed as did Palestine as Military districts even under the Ottomans and the Nation of Jordan was created by the British, not the UN.

---

.No falsehood. Military districts aside, Jordan was Trans-Jordan, then became a state, at the UN. Briton held the caretaker Mandate, she did not own the Middle-east region, even as she crowned owners of swamp lands into Monarchs and Royal Emperors.

quote:

---

No, the Balfour Declaration uses words VERY carefully. The terms were chosen to specifically avoid promising the Jews a Nation State.

---

Yes, and the UN correctly interpreted it in its resolution, which includes the words 'Jewish State'. A terrible, unforgivable crime perpertrated to show racism and apartheid against the whole world. Better you get back to the subject, than falsely accusing others of falsehoods.

quote:

---

The UN was NOT called the League of Nations. They are two separate creations.

---

You have played semantics all along. It is why debating with you ends in a cyclical off topic extension.Every one knows the UN replaced the League, and took on board all of its agreements and mandates. That a new name and entity was created does not mean there was no replacement of the same office: I also pointed to you, the UN had to ratify the Balfour which was deposited with the League as a continuation of its mandate. 'New entity' and 'replacement' here is pure semantics and deflection. Its like a new President takes over the outgoing, even as the new president is a new entity, or when a TV station is bought from another new owner: there is a new entity but the same office: so there is no 'falsehood' in my statement of 'replacement'. There has to be a new entity in such replacements/continuations for other unrelated reasons.The League was shut down because of its horrific corruption; the same occurs with the UN and EU and Islamic league today. All I said were facts, yet you use words such as 'falsehood' and 'new entity' when the office and station is the same. There is thus no possibility of impressing you with the subject criteria.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Son of man = the species of humans, aka 'kind', referred to in Genesis 1/1 creation preamble. And the first two of the 10 C's, and 'God is not like man' [Samuel] applies. The church realised this, and thus applied the gospels being subject to 'belief' only, namely it is a subjective and percieved issue, as opposed historical or factual. Here, only 'shrouded' inference, as opposed 'open' manifestation in the sight of millions, can be attached to the gospel scriptures.But this does not render this 'belief' as voidable, lessened or negatable; there is obviously a mysterious issue here, else the belief premise would not take hold on 2 B people. Once the world believed the world flat - yet when this was over-turned, the people took on board the new belief; this did not happen when Islam emerged, for example, and christians still held on to their own 'beliefs'. This also means, by subsequence, the issue of prophesy cannot be applied as a fact, but presented with the qualification of 'belief' only, meaning non-factual: christianity cannot have it both ways.The issue concerning fullfilled prophesy with christianity, outside of belief, is best seen in the OT verse, 'ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS'; this applies to all three M/E religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because this prophesy was given before any of these 3 religions existed, namely it was pre-covenant. This is an 'open' vindication of prophesy which is not subject to belief, and also gives the reason all three religions are upheld by a divine mandate which cannot be negated, explained, ratified by facts or reasonings alone.Thus the OT gives more credibility to christianity than the NT, which applies to its existence as a mysterious compulsion, rather than its ability to prove itself via the premises of the Gospels. This says all three religions are activated by divine sparks of the Torah, w/o denting any of the OT criteria. Paul had no choice but to go ahead, even in the face of contradiction of all logic, and the NT adherants likewise had no choice but accepted this scripture by a compulsion.Paul would have failed if he remained true to the OT criteria, but this would also render the OT prophesy failing; the greeks failed 200 years before in the same pursuit of Paul. A new religion cannot take hold unless it contains a variant, non-allignable core factor, else it is not a new religion; had Paul alligned with the OT criteria, christianity would remain a denomination of Judaism. This is seen in all three religions, beginning with the irresolvable differences of Judaism and the canaanite religion, and ending with each of the new religions being in core difference of each other. The prophesy of the Gospels is thus true only by belief and a subjective believing criteria; it cannot be posited as an actuality. The only open vindicated here is the OT prophesy which produced numerous religions from the entity of Abraham.The significance of all this is, there will be a new manifestation in establishing the OT as pivotal here; all three religions will adapt to the OT criteria, with one stroke of revelation. How this will occur is not known by anyone, but indications are this will happen, and this, IMHO, can only happen via a manifestation of the OT: if Jesus or Mohammed were to reveal themselves now - it would not resolve anything; christians would demand Jesus, and Muslims would insist on Mohammed. But if Moses, or the Creator as at Sinai, would be revealed, in the sight of all humanity, this would answer both Christians and Muslims - because any rejection here would also negate the dictates of both the NT and the Quran, exactly how it would also negate Judaism if the new revelation is rejected, whatever this may be. Eg: the criteria of any of these three religions is on a cliff hanger, subject only to the OT criteria. The question is, what manifestation would clarify the OT, w/o negating any genuine beliefs. One path is all the names be dropped but their message, where it is correct, will survive; the laws will overtake the names, and this can be a new view of the laws, which is alluded to in Isaiah.This also means, a new revelation will emerge which will clarify any inconsistancies. No genuine belief will be kicked in the soul, because its adherants were subject to a compulsion from another prophesy. Here, not just three religions are involved - there is also the issue of other religions, humanity, other life forms, atheists, agnostics, science and maths, etc - the covenant involved all these entities.

quote:

---

Bullshit IaJ. The League of Nations and the United Nations are two entirely separate, totally differently structured organizations.

---

The UN took on board the Balfour, which I clearly pointed to you, and this means the office was the same, with new names and construct only. The agreed contractual agreements do not cease. Its exactly like a new entity taking over your telephone or gas account. Read and study the applicable law of new entities taking over existing offices and contractuals. The UN could not create Jordan unless the Balfour was ratified, and this occured. Your new entity is gibberish and superfluos, intended only as a deflection.

quote:

---

There is no contract. It is an INTERNAL British document and declaration of sympathy with Zionist aspirations.

---

It is, as stated, a Mandate by the Mandate Government appointed, which produced all the Arab states, as well as the division of that mandate to create Jordan. By the latter, the UN had to first ratify the Balfour - which the UN did, then only Jordan was ratified. If you want to choose which is not a state, you have some 23 others to deal with: who do you suppose created all those Arab states some 120 years ago - the same Brits!

quote:

---

It does NOT propose a Jewish State.

---

Yes, it does. Jewish Home, in the context of a Mandate, is best affirmed by the UN Resolution which ratified the Mandate: it uses the term, JEWISH STATE. Selective, are you not?!

quote:

---

Again Iaj, you continue to post bullshit that is not simply false, it has NOTHING to do with the topic.

​

How can you expect anyone to believe anything you say when your track record on even just history is abysmal.

---

But I won't allow you to post gibberish, then choose to call me names as your deflection. If its off topic, only what it responds to best fits that description.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Uh, no IaJ. The British did NOT create all those states. Did you even read the Thread So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West? where the actual history of how the Nations of the Middle East were formed?

---

All the new states, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and all of the gulf states Kuwait to Emirates. None of these existed before 150 years; none have historical borders; all were created on a whim with swamp land owners who signed up contracts for oil; none were encouraged to be democratic - instead the Regimes were handed vast countries as their personal and private properties; all were ratified by the UN. None of these states' creation underwent a UN Motion which required all countries to vote - except Israel. So you wish to question the M/E's most historical and legally established state - and also play semantics.Of note, the British gave Herzl two other choices for a jewish state, much larger and richer than Palestine, namely in Africa and Australia. The Jews rejected this and went for their own historic land which was stolen by Rome, then by various groups of Europeans and arabs.

quote:

---

Iaj, please point to the passage in tha Balfour Declaration that mandates a Nation State.

​

I will post it yet again:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,

​

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

​

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

​

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

​

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Now once again, do you have ANYTHING on topic?

---

You are hopelessly wrong, even disregarding the UN Motion. Here's your answers:"Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by," -this refers to the return of the jews to *THEIR* homeland, and Herzl's submission of this re-establishment of Israe was approved. This was also approved, prior to Britain, by America and Russia. Briton was not making any gesture of sympathy here - quite the reverse was the case."the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".No, one does not establish ranch homes in Palestine and declare this in her majesty's name. There was no HOUSE FOR SALE sign here."it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,"- this affirms the state status. Only a sovereign state can make prejudicing others.There is no other reading here but of a Jewish State. Jordan was declared as a state for the arabs of Palestine. With the latter, two states were allocated instead of one previously declared [for 30 barrels of oil]. This makes the current premise for another 2-state in what's left of Palestine, the greatest hoax in all recorded history - second only to the hijacking of the name Palestinian. Note this name was not used in the declaration of 2 states [guess why!]. I paraphrase it for safety:'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS [JEWIST STATE], AND ONE FOR THE ARABS [ARAB STATE]. - Churchill.Why is Jordan not being taken to task here - it is in violation of the only condition of its creation: to house the Arabs in Palestine, for which a free state which never existed before was given. Jordan's barring of the 30% arab palestinians is the cause of 1000s of deaths and wars. The Dwarf belongs in Gitmo!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.