Автор |
Тема Пребарувај Опции за темата
|
Miralem
Сениор
Регистриран: 08.Ноември.2005
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 1056
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 11.Јануари.2007 во 15:31 |
Miralem напиша:
Opsss.... zaboraviv da ti donaknadam prasanja.... posto si raspolozen da mi odgovoris.Samo Ljubezno te molam.
Deka biblijata e pisuvana od luge (nepismeni) toa e fakt.Deka nema vrska so Bozja inspiracija,toa e poveke od jasno.
Prvo da vidime dali bile pismeni:
Jošua 15,33-36 U Dolini : Eštaol, Sora, Ašna; (34) Zanoah, En Ganim, Tapuah, Haenam; (35) Jarmut, Adulam, Soko, Azeka; (36) Šaarajim, Aditajim, Hagedera i Gederotajim: četrnaest gradova s njihovim selima.
SEKOJ KOJ ZNAE DA BROI KE VIDI DEKA GORE SE NABROENI 15 GRADOVI A NE 14.
Povtorno Josua 15,21-32 navedeni se 33 gradovi,no avtorot nabroil samo 29!
Međašni su gradovi plemena sinova Judinih, duž edomske međe prema jugu, bili: Kabseel, Eder, Jagur; (22) Kina, Dimona, Adada; (23) Kedeš, Hasor Jitnan; (24) Zif, Telem, Bealot; (25) Novi Hasor, Kirjat Hesron (to jest Hasor); (26) Amam, Šema, Molada; (27) Hasar Gada, Hešmon, Bet-Pelet; (28) Hasar Šual, Beer Šeba s pripadnim područjima; (29) Baala, Ijim, Esem; (30) Eltolad, Kesil, Horma; (31) Siklag, Madmana, Sansana; (32) Lebaot, Šelhim, En Rimon: svega dvadeset i devet gradova s njihovim selima.
Uste ednas Josua:
19,2-6 imame 14 gradovi, a autor veli deka ima samo 13.
Dodijeljena im je kao baština: Beer Šeba, Šeba, Molada; (3) Hasar Šual, Bala, Esem; (4) Eltolad, Betul, Horma, (5) Siklag, Bet-Hamarkabot, Hasar Susa, (6) Bet-Lebaot i Šaruhen: trinaest gradova i njihova sela.
ORTODOX,OD SEGA,TE MOLAM,ZNACI TE MOLAM,KOGA "GRESKI" KE BARAS VO ISLAMOT I OD QUR'ANOT,DA MI GI OPISES NA NACIN KAKO STO JAS PODOLU KE TI JA OPISAM KATASTROFAVA,SO CITATI,DA VIDEME SITE KADE I STO TOCNO TAMU PISUVA.
Dela na Apostolite;
Veli Stjepan za Abrahama (7-4):
4) On nato iziđe iz zemlje kaldejske i nastani se u Haranu. Odande ga nakon smrti oca njegova Bog preseli u ovu zemlju u kojoj vi sada boravite.
Ponataka,veli Stjepan,deka Abraham,posle "smrtta na negoviot tatko" otisol od Harana.... Da znael pisatelot sto pisuva vo postanokot,ne bi mu se pojavila takva greska. (ISPAGJA DEKA SVETIOT DUH NE GO IMA CITANO POSTANOKOT !!)
Postanak 11:26, 32
(26) Kad je Terahu bilo sedamdeset godina, rode mu se: Abraham, Nahor i Haran.
(32) Dob Terahova dosegnu dvjesta i pet godina;
Postanak 12:4
(4) Abram se zaputi kako mu je Jahve rekao. S njime krenu i Lot. Abramu je bilo sedamdeset i pet godina kad je otišao iz Harana.
Sega malku osnovnoskolska matematika: Abraham ja napusta Harana na 75 godini,znaci,vo vremeto koga Tarah imal 145; kako Tarah ziveel 205 godini,mu ostanalo uste 60 godini posle Abrahamovoto napustanje !!! Sega ili Duhot sveti ne go cital Postanokot ili matematikata mu e slaba strana !!
NAGRADNO PRASANJE.KOLKU BIL STAR ABRAHAM KOGA GO NAPUSTIL HARAN ???
Ortodox.... Vaka ke mi pisuvas..... citaj ponataka i odgovori AKO MOZES BEZ NAVREDI,TI SE MOLAM.
- Post.12,4 "Abraham je imao 75 god. kada je otišao iz Harana."
- Acts 7:2-4 " "Naš otac Abraham ... nastani se u Haranu. Odande ga, nakon smrti oca , preseli u ovu zemlju u kojoj vi sada boravite."
- Post. 11,26 "Kad je Terahu bilo sedamdeset godina, rode mu se: Abram... "
- Post.11,32 "Dob Terahova dosegnu dvjesta i pet godina; a onda Terah umrije u Haranu."
Ponataka,vo 7,4 se veli deka Abraham ne go napustil Haran do Tatkovata Smrt.Post.11,26 veli deka Abrahamoviot tatko imal 70 godini koga Abraham se rodil a Abrahamoviot tatko doziveal 205 godisna starost.(11:32). Ponataka jasno e deka Abraham imal 135 godini koga go napustil Haran a povtorno Post.12,4 veli deka go napustil Haran na 75 godini.
Ete... objasni go ova.... Prasanja bez broj imam,pa gotovo se e greska vo Biblijata. Sitnici baraj ti vo Answeringislam.... gi molam site da otidat na taa stranica,da vidat zosto Apologeticari se fakjaat i kakvi greski baraat !!!! Ne pisuvalo vo Qur'anot sto porucal Noe,pa toa e greska !!! Subhanallah !!! A ne e Bitno sto vo Qur'anot edinstveno pisuva kako nastanala vselenata,kako nastanal Covekot,kako se' nastanalo,kako se' se ragja,kako se' umira,kako povtorno se' ke bide oziveno..... Ne e bitno sto celata nauka e iscrpena od taa VELICANSTVENA kniga. Ne e bitno sto SAMO TAA VELICANSTVENA KNIGA EDINSTVENO POSEDUVA DOKAZ ZA BOZJETO POSTOENJE !!!!!
|
|
 |
Miralem
Сениор
Регистриран: 08.Ноември.2005
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 1056
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 11.Јануари.2007 во 15:28 |
Miralem напиша:
Ortodox.... slaba ti e apologetikata !!
Ovie katastrofalni greski ne moze da gi ispravi cel svet na noze da stane !!!
Zaboraviv da ti objasnam koga gi postaviv prasanjata da ne se zamaras so toa racunanje "denonokie".
Aj od sebe pravis budala,ne pravi i od drugite. Kako sto gledate dragi moi prijateli,povtorno odgovor nikade ne dade,osven napagjanje !! Napadot navistina e naj dobra odbrana.NO NE SEKOGAS !!!!
Ima 3 sati razlika,ortodox,KOJ E FATEN VO LAGA ????!!! Koj zaboravil tolku vazen nastan,koga nivniot spasitel "voskresnal" i nivniot ucitel !?
NE SE SLOZUVAAT CAK NI SO TOA KOI BILE "PREVAZNITE" ISUSOVI POSLEDNI ZBOROVI !!!
Zarem nemale posle toa stotina bogobojazni razgovori ? Kako moze Marko da tvrdi deka bil 3 satot a Ivan 6 ???
Prema togasnoto racunanje na vremeto koe go rabotele site narodi (Rimjani,Evrei,Grci) 6 satot go oznacuvalo 6 satot na denot te. 6 sati posle izlezot na sonceto... ZNACI PLADNE. Tri satot (treca ura) e devet satot na utro.LAZEL ILI SAMO EDEN OD NIV DVAJCA,ILI,STO E NAJ VEROVATNO,DVAJCATA.
Apologeticarite,ne sedele so vkrsteni race,pa izmislija "resenie" deka togasnite Rimjani racunale so denesnoto merenje na vremeto pa Ivanoviot 6 satot e 6 nautro po rimsko vreme. Osven sto e toa nivna Izmisljotina,uste nesto ne vredi so raspnuvanjeto na samata zora te. vo 6 nautro,pa makar i da se vo pravo.EVE STO SE' TREBALO DA SE SLUCI TOA UTRO:
1. Sanhedin se sretnal "koga se razdenilo" i mu presudil na Isus.
2. Pilatot isto taka,"koga se razdenilo"
stanal i rabotel i bil spremen da mu presudi na sekoj kogo Evreite ke mu go donesat.
3. Nakon prvoto ispituvanje,pilatot odlucil deka Isus e nevin.
4. Pilatot kontaktira so Harodot (PREKU MOBILEN ?!) vo samata zora i go prakja Isus kaj nego da go vidi.
5. Harodot go ispituva nekoe vreme pa go prakja Isus malku strazarite da se poigraet so nego i go vrakja nazad kaj Pilatot.
6. Isus togas se predava na Harodovata vojska koi go izrugale,oblekle i go vratile kaj Pilatot.
7. Pilatot povtorno gi sobral site svestenici,vodaci i narodot i imal raspravija so niv.
8. Pilatovite vojnici potoa go kamsikuvaat,go izmacuvaat i go oblekuvaat za raspnuvanje.
9. Imame i tri pati na kuk*rikanje na petel posle Petrovoto odreknuvanje deka ima vrska so Isus (Dali kuk*rikal po nokta ???!!!)
Seto toa se slucilo vo 6 satot nautro (po nase racunanje na vremeto) !!! Toa e,sekako neverovatno. Kako za Markoviot 3 satot taka i za Ivanoviot 6 satot po Apologetsko racunanje na vremeto.
Mora da go vklucime i toa sto po Apologetskoto racunanje na vremento od 6 do 9 satot ne razdenuvalo... sto znaci,seto toa seslucilo vo mrak. Tek 3 sati posle raspnuvanjeto na Isus se razdenilo !!!!!!!!
Uostalom,site povesnicari se slozuvaat deka rimjanite so 6 satot go oznacuvale pladne i gi broele satite od izlezot do zalezot na sonceto,toa e vidlivo od togasnite dokumenti,vklucuvajki go Plenij (Kniga II LXXI. 178 - LXXII) i sve drugite).
Za toa kolku Isus bil vo srceto na zemjata... Ma kako god da racunas nikako ne bil 3 NOKI !!
Eve eden kratok komentar od edna stranica vo vrska so toa:
* Ako su žene došle "Po suboti, u osvit prvoga dana u tjednu", to po Židovima znači da su došle - nakon Subote, - u osvit dana tj. navečer, jer po Židovima, dan započinje navečer i traje do početka večeri, 24 sata kasnije. Po židovskoj tadašnjoj logici (koja je nekako logičnija nego ono što imamo danas), "dan" započinje s padanjem noći, pola dana je zora, a druga polovica dana je vrijeme dnevne svjetlosti. Danas "dan" započinje u 00 sati, u ponoć, što je proizvoljan dogovor. Židovima je "osvit dana" ustvari kada "dan" započinje, a to je zalazak sunca (sjetite se da je prvo bila tama, pa je onda bog stvorio svjetlost). Neizbježan zaključak je da su žene čekale da prođe blagdan Subota (Šabat) kako bi smjele posjetiti Isusov grob. Subota je prošla popodne sljedećega dana, tj. prije početka nedjelje koja je prvi dan u tjednu, koji započinje sa zalaskom sunca. E sad, ako su žene stigle kad se smračilo, ili je već bio sumrak, a grob je već bio prazan, onda moramo zaključiti nešto što se kršćanima koji slave nedjelju kao dan Isusova uskrsnuća nikako neće dopasti. Isus uopće nije uskrsnuo/iznesen iz groba/izišao van, u nedjelju, već je još bila subota. Subotari : nedjeljari = 1 : 0.
*Simbolika "boravka tri dana i noći u mraku i konačna pobjeda" ustvari je preuzeta od drevnih mitova, koji su na neki simboličan način pokušavali protumačiti "misteriozno vrijeme mirovanja Sunca, tj. kada se ta zvijezda, nakon tri dana mirovanja (22, 23. i 24. prosinac) 25. prosinca prvi put (prividno u odnosu na Zemlju) pomiče s najhladnije točke, te je tako ovaj datum predstavljao slavlje 'ponovnog rađanja' nebeskog tijela - Pobjedu Sunca - koje daje život Zemlji. |
2.Prasanje.
Zarem edinstveniot svedok,na naj vaznoto prasanje,na koe zavisi Hristijanskata vera-Voskresnuvanjeto-e MRAKOT ??????
Dali toj slucaj e potkrepen so dokazi i dali se slozuvaat site okolu nego ????
Sekoj "apostol" po svoe pisuva koj prv go videl Isusoviot prazen grob (A NE I VOSKRESNUVANJETO)
Dali Grobot bil otvoren (Luka 24,2) ili bil zatvoren koga stignala zenata/zenite(Mat 28,1-2); Kogo videle kaj Grobot,Angel (Mat. 28,2) ili mladic (Marko 16,5) ili dvajca mazi (Luka 24,4) ili dva angeli (Ivan 20,11-12); Dali tie mazi/angeli,bile nadvor (Mat. 28.2) ili vnatre vo grobnicata (Marko 16,5, Luka 24,3-4, Ivan 20,11-12).; Stoele (Luka 24,4) ili sedele (Matej 28,2, Marko 16,5, Ivan 20,12).; Dali Marija Magdalena go prepoznala Isusa koga prv pat i se pojavil? Da (Matt. 28,9). Ne (Ivan 20,14).
a. Sprema Matej 28,1, "dođe Marija Magdalena i druga Marija pogledati grob.."
b. Sprema Marko 16,1, ", Marija Magdalena i Marija Jakovljeva i Saloma ...o izlasku sunčevu, dođu na grob."
c. Sprema Luka 23,55; 24,1 i 24,10 "žene koje su s Isusom došle iz Galileje." Među njima bijahu: "Marija Magdalena, Ivana i Marija Jakovljeva." Po Luka vo 24,10 imame barem uste 2 drugi.
d. Sprema Ivan 20,1-4, "još za mraka, dođe Marija Magdalena na grob".
Site se slozuvaat samo okolu toa deka svedok za toj slucaj e Marija Magdalena-ex Ludaca od koja Isus izvadil 7 demoni.(Po Marko 16,9; Po Luka 8,2).
Е ,многу си смешен!Па тие 10 луѓе на ден се некои безверници и неверници, и од нив фајде никој нема да има, а на крај на краиштата , држи се до Православие!Дали толку многу православни примаат илсам, или обратно имаше текст дека во Русија, голем број муслимани примаат православие!!!! |
No Fakt e deka go prifakjaat !!! A poznat izgovor e toj tvojot. Izjavata za rusija.... sto vika bratot,abe cifrata da bese malku pomala,ke bese vo red i mozese nekoj duri da poveruva vo toa,no dragi moj ortodox,ne znaete duri da lazete,toa e samo vasa iluzija,zelba,za koja moze samo da sonuvate !!! Nikoj ubavinata na Islamot ne ja napusta. Nema greska vo Islamot. A Hristijanstvo,ete eden naj mal del pogore zosto se napusta !!! Sto treba mec za pameten covek da napusti Hristijanstvo !!?? NE ZNAE VO STO VERUVA !!! Ami ne e samo Italija.... po cel svet !!! SONCETO OD ZAPAD PRED SUDNIOT DEN KE IZGREE !!
EVE SAMO ZA PRIMER KAKOV ODGOVOR MI DADE NA PRASANJETO A NA SLEDNA PORAKA MI PISUVAS "SLEP LI SI,PA TI ODGOVORIV"
Za Komparacijata 4... kako sto kazav i kako sto te zamoliv... da napises Aet Qur'anski kade stoi toa taka zapisano pa da go procitame site !!!
Ne mi kaza za Marija ("bogorodica") kolku godini imala koga umrela,taa e dosta vazna licnost vo Biblijata i kaj Hristijanite,bi trebalo da znaete... a ne prasuvaj za noe kolku listovi imalo na grankata.... i kolku prozorci imala arkata..... Nisto ne mi kaza za toa vo kolku satot vasiot spasitel e raspnat ??? 3 ili 6 ??? zosto se stramis da zboruvas za Hristijanstvoto ??? pa i za sramota e.
Па, еве што кажа другар ти, самоповикан калиф
Muhammed go znael Quranot napamet pa ne e mozno da se sluci nekakva kontradiktornost na Quranot
-Kazi mi kade pisuva deka Merjem e sestra na Musa? Nego Allah kazuva kako lugeto i se obratile na Merjem majkata na ISA
"O sestro na Haruna ,ne bese tvojot tatko....... " znaci bratot nejzin
se vikal Harun sto nema vrska so MUSA |
SE MOLAM DA MI ODGOVORIS,BEZ PANIKA I PARANOJA,NE E STRAMOTA DA KAZES NE ZNAM,BEZ DA SE GLUPIRAS.... GO PRIZNAA TOA DAAALEKU POPAMETNI LUGE OD TEBE.
Sekoe dobro vi posakuvam kolku da pokazam deka sum Plemenit sledbenik na posledniot Allahov dz.s pratenik,Milenik,Resulullahu Salallahu alejhi we sellem.
|
Ortodox... so za sega tolku ???
Ke odgovoris ??
|
 |
здраво
Сениор
Регистриран: 15.Декември.2006
Локација: Macedonia
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 253
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 11.Јануари.2007 во 13:40 |
mist напиша:
orthodox напиша:
eve sum na kratko, samo da cestitam .........
ke odgovoram ponatamu, sega za sega da vidime
koj kogo ke ubedi
Aladin ili kalifot .........
|
orthodox мислам дека спријателувањето на аладин и кхалифах е нивна работа. Коментирањето на оваа тема е твоја работа. Ќе го чекам нестрпливо твојот одговор.
|
И кој чека ќе дочека
|
|
 |
vd
Сениор
Регистриран: 13.Јануари.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 1539
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 11.Јануари.2007 во 13:21 |
orthodox напиша:
eve sum na kratko, samo da cestitam .........
ke odgovoram ponatamu, sega za sega da vidime
koj kogo ke ubedi
Aladin ili kalifot .........
| orthodox мислам дека спријателувањето на аладин и кхалифах е нивна работа. Коментирањето на оваа тема е твоја работа. Ќе го чекам нестрпливо твојот одговор.
|
 |
begu
Сениор
Регистриран: 30.Август.2006
Локација: Macedonia
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 763
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 11.Јануари.2007 во 09:10 |
Cestitam na novoto prijatelstvo, racunajteme vo druzba .
|
 |
orthodox
Сениор
Регистриран: 06.Март.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 100
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 10.Јануари.2007 во 21:35 |
eve sum na kratko, samo da cestitam
Hristos se rodi!Krishti u lind!
ke odgovoram ponatamu, sega za sega da vidime
koj kogo ke ubedi
Aladin ili kalifot, nekako mi se sprijatelija mnogu...
d.nok 
|
Се за Христос, Христос ни за што!
|
 |
vd
Сениор
Регистриран: 13.Јануари.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 1539
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 10.Јануари.2007 во 20:38 |
И сеуште неможе да се коментира на професионален начин!!
|
 |
vd
Сениор
Регистриран: 13.Јануари.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 1539
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 10.Јануари.2007 во 12:23 |
orthodox, ќе продолжиме ли?!
|
 |
aladin
Сениор
Регистриран: 30.Октомври.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 2043
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 09.Јануари.2007 во 17:58 |
aladin напиша:

samo za informacija ova gore e kako turcite go besat patrijarhot!
vo carigrad!
The Tourkokratia - Was it Really That Bad?-Part 3A
|
Athens News
Was
the four-century-long Ottoman rule of Greece a burdensome legacy for
the nation's overall development? In the final instalment, historian
David Brewer revisits the Ottoman influence on Greece in the leadup to
Greek independence. He offers his final conclusions on the good versus
the bad of the Tourkokratia
|
Fifteen
years after the fall of Crete, Venice's attempt to recover her position
in the eastern Mediterranean brought war to the mainland of Greece for
the first time since the original Ottoman conquests.
Venice joined the alliance of powers, another so-called Holy League,
that had driven the Ottoman army back from their last siege of Vienna
in 1683, and now aimed to push them out of Europe altogether. In 1684, Venetian troops, once again under Francesco Morosini, landed in western Greece aiming to annex Greece.
|
|
The
Venetians, with intermittent help from the Greeks of the Mani, had
immediate and dramatic successes. By summer 1687 they controlled the
whole Peloponnese. In the autumn the Venetians besieged Athens, where
on September 26 a mortar shot from the besiegers detonated the Ottoman
powder magazine in the Parthenon, beginning the Parthenon Marbles saga
that arouses passionate
controversy to this day. Ironically, the capture of Athens and the
unfortunate mortar shot served no purpose; within a few months the Venetians had abandoned Athens as strategically worthless.
|
The
Ottomans, as so often in their history, were now fighting on two
fronts, both this time in the west. As well as the Venetian attack on
the Peloponnese, the Ottoman forces faced the rapid advance of the
Austrian troops of the Holy League, who got as far south as Skopje. At
all costs the Ottomans had to prevent the joining of the two arms of
the offensive, and in fact they halted the Venetian advance some 30
miles north of Athens. If the two armies had succeeded in meeting,
Greece and the rest of the Balkans could have been released en bloc
from Ottoman rule by the end of the 17th century, instead of piecemeal
in the 19th.
|
Sultan's soldiers and Turkish mob capture Orthodox
Patriarch Constantinople Grigorios V to hang him
outside the patriarchate in Istanbul on 10 April 1821,
Orthodox Easter Day, in revenge for the Greeks'
independence revolt
|
But
the Austrian offensive rapidly petered out, and by the end of 1690
Belgrade and all the territory south of it were once again in Ottoman
hands. The expulsion of the Venetians
from Greece came later. In 1715 a massive Ottoman army of 100,000 drove
the 8,000 Venetian defenders from the Peloponnese. In the treaty that
followed, Venice retained only the Ionian islands and four towns on the
opposite mainland. Venice's days as a major player in Greece were over.
The prelude to independence
The
next major event of the Tourkokratia was the Orlov revolt of 1770. It
was inspired by Russia and began in one of the most lawless areas of
Greece, the southern Peloponnese. Under Catherine the Great, Russia was
expansionist and wanted access to the Mediterranean. This was blocked
by Turkey's control of the Bosphorus, the only outlet from the
Black Sea. Russia saw Turkey as vulnerable, though it was another
century before a Russian tsar called Turkey the Sick Man of Europe. In
1768, Russia and Turkey declared war.
Possession of Greece would, of course, give Russia its coveted access to the Mediterranean.
Russian agents in Greece reported, with unfounded optimism, that
100,000 armed Greeks, klephts and others, would support a Russian
invasion. At the end of February 1770, Count Theodore Orlov, one of
Catherine the Great's many lovers, landed at the little harbour of Hilo
in the Mani, with five ships and only 500 men. The Greeks were
unimpressed, and nothing like the promised 100,000 Greek supporters
materialised.
Nevertheless,
the revolt had some significant early successes, taking Navarino,
Mistra and Kalamata, and further north even briefly holding Mesolonghi.
The Turks quickly struck back. In early April, only six weeks after the
Russian landing, the Turks and their Albanian mercenaries crushingly
defeated the Russians and Greeks at Tripolis in the central Peloponnese.
From
then on the Russians retreated. The Albanian mercenaries of the Turks
were totally ruthless in suppressing the revolt, plundering and
killing. On 6 June 1770, the Russians sailed away ftom their last
outpost at Navarino. The revolt had lasted less than a hundred days, and had left the Greeks in a worse condition than before.
Though
Russia had failed in Greece she had been overwhelmingly successful in
the war elsewhere. In the 1774 Treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji, which ended
the war, she was able to dictate her own terms. Russia got her access
through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean. She also acquired the right
to protect the Greek and other Christian subjects of Turkey. Even
more important for the Greeks was an extension of the treaty five years
later, giving Greek ships the right to fly the Russian flag and therefore access to the Black Sea. The door was opened for a huge expansion of Greek maritime trade.
The
Orlov revolt, though shortlived and fruitless in itself, was a sign
that the world was changing, both in Greece and beyond. The decline of
the Ottoman empire was becoming obvious to the powers of Europe,
especially to neighbouring Russia. The vultures were eyeing their
moribund prey. Also the Greeks themselves were beginning to reach out
to the wider world. The treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji and its successor
agreements had opened the Black Sea to them, so the Greeks began to
build the larger ships needed for long voyages, especially in the naval
Aegean islands of Hydra, Spetses and Psara. The agreements had also
given Greeks the right to trade in all Habsburg dominions, which
included Austria, Hungary and most of Germany and Italy. Greek
merchants therefore became established in cities throughout Europe, and
this stimulated the flow of European ideas into Greece.
The
so-called Greek Enlightenment, it has to be said, did not amount to
much as an intellectual movement. Unlike the Scottish Enlightenment,
which contributed new ideas to the debate, it was purely and
haphazardly derivative.
Greek thinkers were too wedded to the ancient masters Plato and Aristotle and to conservative church doctrine to be truly innovative.
There was, however, one important message of the Enlightenment which did reach Greece. The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 had proclaimed as self-evident
that if any form of government, becomes destructive of the rights of
man, "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." In
Greece, Kolokotronis, former klepht and then military leader in the war
of independence, saw the same principle in the French Revolution and
expressed the idea more
pithily. "The nations," he said, "knew nothing before the French
Revolution. The people thought that kings were gods upon earth, and
that the people were bound to say that whatever the kings did was well
done." The scene was set for the Greek rising of 1821.
So how bad was the Tourkokratia?
Let's look at the charges against Turkish rule:
1. That the Greeks were enslaved.
No. Some Greeks were taken as slaves by Turks and others. But the
Greeks as a whole were not slaves; they were not the property of an
owner who could buy and sell them.
2. That Greek boys were fordbly conscripted. Yes, even though some benefited from this system, and it was abandoned around 1700.
3. That Greeks were under pressure to convert to Islam. No. The relatively few conversions were for personal advantage. There was no pressure to convert.
4. That Greek education had to be in secret. No, not true at all.
5. That Greek revolts were ruthlessly suppressed. Yes, but that was true for most of
Europe.
6. That Turkish taxation was unbearably oppressive. Yes and no. Probably not true of the earlier period, but increasingly true later, as the Ottoman economy declined.
7. That the Turks cut Greece off from Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. No.
The main barrier to Greek artistic and intellectual development Was the
conservatism of the Greek Church, and of the education for which it was
responsible.
8. That theTurks failed to develop the country and left nothing of value behind them.
Yes, broadly true. They could have done much more to stimulate
productive agriculture, drain swamps, prevent soil erosion and build
roads and ports to encourage trade.
Next, what can one say on the plus side?
1. There was no official interference with Greek religion. In many cases the Greeks preferred the tolerance of Turkish rule to the proselytising Catholicism of the Venetians. Greece
was, spared the religious conflicts that, racked much of Europe: the St
Bartholomew's Day massacre of Huguenots in france, the Inquisition in Spain.
|
2. There was no interference with education, and there was no threat to the Greek language or to Greek culture in general.
3. Greek territory, once acquired by the Turks, was not fought over.
The one exception was the Venetian attempt on the Peloponnese in the
1680s. The Turkish conquests of 1453 had saved Greec from the battles
of Crusader barons and Turkish occupation spared Greece the horrors of
later European conflicts. Greece had no Thirty Years' War.
|
Ottoman troops slaughter civilians on the Aegean
island of Chios in the spring of 1822. European nations protested at
the brutal destruction of Chios and the Philhellenic movement across
the continent was renewed
|
On
balance, therefore, the Tourkokratia was not that bad, and brought
benefits as well as disadvantages. But this is to treat a people's
history as a matter of accountancy. It would be a better conclusion to
recall two things said about the Greeks by Yorgos Seferis, diplomat,
poet and the first Greek to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.
On the Greeks' own responsibility for their misfortunes,
he quoted approvingly an old Cretan saying: "The fate every people
makes for itself, and the things its own madness does to it, are not
things done by its enemies."
And on reconciliation, Seferis wrote of the destruction by fire of his beloved birthplace Smyrna
in 1922, at the end of the Asia Minor catastrophe. Greeks and Turks, he
said, blame each other for the fire, but he concluded: "Who will discover the truth? The wrong has been committed. The important thing is, who will redeem it?"
|
zosto go besat patrijarhot??????
toj sto tocno ke odgovori dobiva yugo-45!
kvisko pita----- muslimani odgovaraju!
|
nema odgovor????
nagradata ja zgolemuvame - lada niva!!!!1900-disel
povelete odgovorete!
| ajde da prodolzime!
|
 |
aladin
Сениор
Регистриран: 30.Октомври.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 2043
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 08.Јануари.2007 во 18:11 |
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!
wrong answer! ---- try again!
ps:
mala pomos:- bile vo lov na lavovi!
Изменето од aladin - 08.Јануари.2007 во 18:13
|
 |
khaleefah
Сениор
"The Khilafah is Coming..."
Регистриран: 25.Септември.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 1115
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 08.Јануари.2007 во 17:47 |
Neznael da faka zajaci !!!
Najverovatno toa ke da e
Ladata vamu!!! 
|
 |
aladin
Сениор
Регистриран: 30.Октомври.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 2043
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 08.Јануари.2007 во 17:30 |
samo za informacija ova gore e kako turcite go besat patrijarhot!
vo carigrad!
The Tourkokratia - Was it Really That Bad?-Part 3A
|
Athens News
Was
the four-century-long Ottoman rule of Greece a burdensome legacy for
the nation's overall development? In the final instalment, historian
David Brewer revisits the Ottoman influence on Greece in the leadup to
Greek independence. He offers his final conclusions on the good versus
the bad of the Tourkokratia
|
Fifteen
years after the fall of Crete, Venice's attempt to recover her position
in the eastern Mediterranean brought war to the mainland of Greece for
the first time since the original Ottoman conquests.
Venice joined the alliance of powers, another so-called Holy League,
that had driven the Ottoman army back from their last siege of Vienna
in 1683, and now aimed to push them out of Europe altogether. In 1684, Venetian troops, once again under Francesco Morosini, landed in western Greece aiming to annex Greece.
|
|
The
Venetians, with intermittent help from the Greeks of the Mani, had
immediate and dramatic successes. By summer 1687 they controlled the
whole Peloponnese. In the autumn the Venetians besieged Athens, where
on September 26 a mortar shot from the besiegers detonated the Ottoman
powder magazine in the Parthenon, beginning the Parthenon Marbles saga
that arouses passionate
controversy to this day. Ironically, the capture of Athens and the
unfortunate mortar shot served no purpose; within a few months the Venetians had abandoned Athens as strategically worthless.
|
The
Ottomans, as so often in their history, were now fighting on two
fronts, both this time in the west. As well as the Venetian attack on
the Peloponnese, the Ottoman forces faced the rapid advance of the
Austrian troops of the Holy League, who got as far south as Skopje. At
all costs the Ottomans had to prevent the joining of the two arms of
the offensive, and in fact they halted the Venetian advance some 30
miles north of Athens. If the two armies had succeeded in meeting,
Greece and the rest of the Balkans could have been released en bloc
from Ottoman rule by the end of the 17th century, instead of piecemeal
in the 19th.
|
Sultan's soldiers and Turkish mob capture Orthodox
Patriarch Constantinople Grigorios V to hang him
outside the patriarchate in Istanbul on 10 April 1821,
Orthodox Easter Day, in revenge for the Greeks'
independence revolt
|
But
the Austrian offensive rapidly petered out, and by the end of 1690
Belgrade and all the territory south of it were once again in Ottoman
hands. The expulsion of the Venetians
from Greece came later. In 1715 a massive Ottoman army of 100,000 drove
the 8,000 Venetian defenders from the Peloponnese. In the treaty that
followed, Venice retained only the Ionian islands and four towns on the
opposite mainland. Venice's days as a major player in Greece were over.
The prelude to independence
The
next major event of the Tourkokratia was the Orlov revolt of 1770. It
was inspired by Russia and began in one of the most lawless areas of
Greece, the southern Peloponnese. Under Catherine the Great, Russia was
expansionist and wanted access to the Mediterranean. This was blocked
by Turkey's control of the Bosphorus, the only outlet from the
Black Sea. Russia saw Turkey as vulnerable, though it was another
century before a Russian tsar called Turkey the Sick Man of Europe. In
1768, Russia and Turkey declared war.
Possession of Greece would, of course, give Russia its coveted access to the Mediterranean.
Russian agents in Greece reported, with unfounded optimism, that
100,000 armed Greeks, klephts and others, would support a Russian
invasion. At the end of February 1770, Count Theodore Orlov, one of
Catherine the Great's many lovers, landed at the little harbour of Hilo
in the Mani, with five ships and only 500 men. The Greeks were
unimpressed, and nothing like the promised 100,000 Greek supporters
materialised.
Nevertheless,
the revolt had some significant early successes, taking Navarino,
Mistra and Kalamata, and further north even briefly holding Mesolonghi.
The Turks quickly struck back. In early April, only six weeks after the
Russian landing, the Turks and their Albanian mercenaries crushingly
defeated the Russians and Greeks at Tripolis in the central Peloponnese.
From
then on the Russians retreated. The Albanian mercenaries of the Turks
were totally ruthless in suppressing the revolt, plundering and
killing. On 6 June 1770, the Russians sailed away ftom their last
outpost at Navarino. The revolt had lasted less than a hundred days, and had left the Greeks in a worse condition than before.
Though
Russia had failed in Greece she had been overwhelmingly successful in
the war elsewhere. In the 1774 Treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji, which ended
the war, she was able to dictate her own terms. Russia got her access
through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean. She also acquired the right
to protect the Greek and other Christian subjects of Turkey. Even
more important for the Greeks was an extension of the treaty five years
later, giving Greek ships the right to fly the Russian flag and therefore access to the Black Sea. The door was opened for a huge expansion of Greek maritime trade.
The
Orlov revolt, though shortlived and fruitless in itself, was a sign
that the world was changing, both in Greece and beyond. The decline of
the Ottoman empire was becoming obvious to the powers of Europe,
especially to neighbouring Russia. The vultures were eyeing their
moribund prey. Also the Greeks themselves were beginning to reach out
to the wider world. The treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji and its successor
agreements had opened the Black Sea to them, so the Greeks began to
build the larger ships needed for long voyages, especially in the naval
Aegean islands of Hydra, Spetses and Psara. The agreements had also
given Greeks the right to trade in all Habsburg dominions, which
included Austria, Hungary and most of Germany and Italy. Greek
merchants therefore became established in cities throughout Europe, and
this stimulated the flow of European ideas into Greece.
The
so-called Greek Enlightenment, it has to be said, did not amount to
much as an intellectual movement. Unlike the Scottish Enlightenment,
which contributed new ideas to the debate, it was purely and
haphazardly derivative.
Greek thinkers were too wedded to the ancient masters Plato and Aristotle and to conservative church doctrine to be truly innovative.
There was, however, one important message of the Enlightenment which did reach Greece. The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 had proclaimed as self-evident
that if any form of government, becomes destructive of the rights of
man, "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." In
Greece, Kolokotronis, former klepht and then military leader in the war
of independence, saw the same principle in the French Revolution and
expressed the idea more
pithily. "The nations," he said, "knew nothing before the French
Revolution. The people thought that kings were gods upon earth, and
that the people were bound to say that whatever the kings did was well
done." The scene was set for the Greek rising of 1821.
So how bad was the Tourkokratia?
Let's look at the charges against Turkish rule:
1. That the Greeks were enslaved.
No. Some Greeks were taken as slaves by Turks and others. But the
Greeks as a whole were not slaves; they were not the property of an
owner who could buy and sell them.
2. That Greek boys were fordbly conscripted. Yes, even though some benefited from this system, and it was abandoned around 1700.
3. That Greeks were under pressure to convert to Islam. No. The relatively few conversions were for personal advantage. There was no pressure to convert.
4. That Greek education had to be in secret. No, not true at all.
5. That Greek revolts were ruthlessly suppressed. Yes, but that was true for most of
Europe.
6. That Turkish taxation was unbearably oppressive. Yes and no. Probably not true of the earlier period, but increasingly true later, as the Ottoman economy declined.
7. That the Turks cut Greece off from Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. No.
The main barrier to Greek artistic and intellectual development Was the
conservatism of the Greek Church, and of the education for which it was
responsible.
8. That theTurks failed to develop the country and left nothing of value behind them.
Yes, broadly true. They could have done much more to stimulate
productive agriculture, drain swamps, prevent soil erosion and build
roads and ports to encourage trade.
Next, what can one say on the plus side?
1. There was no official interference with Greek religion. In many cases the Greeks preferred the tolerance of Turkish rule to the proselytising Catholicism of the Venetians. Greece
was, spared the religious conflicts that, racked much of Europe: the St
Bartholomew's Day massacre of Huguenots in france, the Inquisition in Spain.
|
2. There was no interference with education, and there was no threat to the Greek language or to Greek culture in general.
3. Greek territory, once acquired by the Turks, was not fought over.
The one exception was the Venetian attempt on the Peloponnese in the
1680s. The Turkish conquests of 1453 had saved Greec from the battles
of Crusader barons and Turkish occupation spared Greece the horrors of
later European conflicts. Greece had no Thirty Years' War.
|
Ottoman troops slaughter civilians on the Aegean
island of Chios in the spring of 1822. European nations protested at
the brutal destruction of Chios and the Philhellenic movement across
the continent was renewed
|
On
balance, therefore, the Tourkokratia was not that bad, and brought
benefits as well as disadvantages. But this is to treat a people's
history as a matter of accountancy. It would be a better conclusion to
recall two things said about the Greeks by Yorgos Seferis, diplomat,
poet and the first Greek to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.
On the Greeks' own responsibility for their misfortunes,
he quoted approvingly an old Cretan saying: "The fate every people
makes for itself, and the things its own madness does to it, are not
things done by its enemies."
And on reconciliation, Seferis wrote of the destruction by fire of his beloved birthplace Smyrna
in 1922, at the end of the Asia Minor catastrophe. Greeks and Turks, he
said, blame each other for the fire, but he concluded: "Who will discover the truth? The wrong has been committed. The important thing is, who will redeem it?"
|
zosto go besat patrijarhot??????
toj sto tocno ke odgovori dobiva yugo-45!
kvisko pita----- muslimani odgovaraju!
|
nema odgovor????
nagradata ja zgolemuvame - lada niva!!!!1900-disel
povelete odgovorete!
Изменето од aladin - 08.Јануари.2007 во 17:32
|
 |
belichka
Сениор
Регистриран: 30.Октомври.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 2023
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 08.Јануари.2007 во 13:57 |
marco_antony напиша:
pravoslavieto e ... ako covek sam dojde do toa.. ako sam si se produhovi....
dodeka kaj islamot ne e taka...
|
Vsusnost megu redovi koga ke se procita....se doagja do nesto bitno a toa ,,Slobodnata Volja,, koja Bog mu ja dal na covekot i tuka se gleda sovrsenosta i pravata vera koja ne te ogranicuva vo slobodata na izbor, istrazuvawe i dogjawe do Vistinata,
dodeka vo islamot nema ,,slobodna volja,, nemas pravo da razmisluvas oti ako pocnes ke dojdes do Vistinata Patot i Zivotot Hristos...
ograniceni vo svojata nemokj bez pravo na slobodna volja stanuvaat robovi na nivniot bog,
A nashiot Gospod Isus Hristos nesaka robska pokornost no ljubovna pokornost....
|
 |
marco_antony
Сениор
Регистриран: 17.Јули.2006
Локација: Macedonia
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 11062
|
Опции за коментарот
Благодарам(0)
Цитирај Одговор
Испратена: 08.Јануари.2007 во 13:17 |
pravoslavieto e ... ako covek sam dojde do toa..
ako sam si se produhovi....
dodeka kaj islamot ne e taka...
|
 PARADISE MACEDONIA
|
 |