You mean the basis of them are Christianised Jews, Samarians and Galileans.
People who had heeded the words of our Lord and fled to Pella before Romans came, missed dispersion, returned after the Jewish War and stayed ... remained Christian (rather than revert to Judaism) when Chosroes came, welcomed Heraclius (the first crusader, unless you count him as second and Constantine as first), and not been Islamised when Omar came.
Then there is among Christians an admixture of Christians from oher parts of Roman Emoire, from Crusaders and later, and among those that were Islamised under Omar (or later) an admixture from Arabia and later other parts of Islamic world.
Now, two more things:
Theodore Herzl visited Pope Saint Pius X to get his support.
He answered two things: 1) Palestinians, 2) if you go to the Holy Land, we have priests there to baptise you.
Joshua: the Cananeans he conquered and in some cases slaughtered were not Palestinian Christians or even Muslims, they were more comparable to Albigensians or Azteks when Simon de Montfort and Cortez arrived (but these only slaughtered armies, civilians not obstinate had to be given a chance to convert, you know "all nations" in end of St Matthew) or to Carthaginians when Scipio Africanus came.
They worshipped strange gods who accepted or required human sacrifice. Not on one just possible occasion like Jephthah's daughter (though I am not sure at all Church Fathers exclude First Nun or Consecrated Virgin theory), but again and again.
And of course, Palestinians are descended from Judah-and-Benjamin as well as from Ephraim, since Acts 8 ecclesiastical reunion of Judah and Ephraim.
As for Amalekites, it seems possible these were the Hyksos that brought such suffering on Egyptians, a point to make because some have identified Moses of the Bible with the later Pharaos Ahmoses and Thutmoses who expelled the Hyksos, and these people who say that have also identified Hebrews with Hyksos.
It was in 1600, it was for apostasy into esoteric and pantheistic and polytheistic beliefs.
Giordano Bruno believed that each solar system (as we call them) was a universe and each universe had its own god and each god was the soul of its universe and each universe, particularly each sun, the body of its god.
Compare that with Avvakum who was burned for believing (with Gregory Palamas) the Immaculate Conception, as well as for a few matters of ritual.
Galileo's telescope made the old model of reality collapse for ever? Nah.
And Scholasticism originating as a remodelling of Theology after chaos of Barbarian invasions is wrong too.
It is one of the fables that Metallinos got from Romanides and Romanides from a 19th C. heavily anti-French and anti-Catholic Anglican divine. Via Harvard.
Nor is it true that it originated with Islamic scholasticism.
It originated with Abélard, who was alive when Jerusalem was taken, and whose intellectual roots were not Crusader mediated Islamic influences.
It got later infected with Averroism, but St Thomas Aquinas and Bishop Tempier were fighting Averroism. Aquinas argued against it, Tempier condemned 219 theses, mainly Averroist ones.
If you know Latin:
You said Augustine's teaching of original sin was erroneous?
You have a problem, it was shared by Gregory Palamas. It is the death bringing infection that baptism washes away.
And as for saying it made mankind "completely depraved or evil", no St Augustine of Hippo did not say that. When Jesuits defended the Orthodox view on that one, they did so against pseudo-Augustinians: Luther, Calvin, Baius, Jansenius, Quesnel. But they did so with real scholarship about what St Augustine actually wrote.
This was rejected as Papist fanaticism by Protestants, including Anglicans.
Romanides had his view of St Augustine formed by Harvard scholars, more Protestant than the Anglicans of Oxford or perhaps even Cambridge.
No, St Augustine remains "ho en tois hagiois Aougoustinos" as Photius called him in Vivliothiki.
And Photius was a scholastic well before Aquinas. When I was Orthodox for two years, I compared St Thomas Aquinas to Photius and St Ignatius of Loyola to Gregory Palamas.
If you want a reliable source for St Ignatius of Loyola being a hesychast, look up his biographies.
If you want a reliable source for Photius being a scholastic, look up R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries.
Using Plato and Aristotle for philosophy was scholasticism, well before using Cicero for rhetoric became the Renaissance.
Genesis as "absolute model of reality" - if you mean thereby absolutely factual truth, with its story and time frame - certain people did certainly accept that as such.
They are usually known as Church Fathers.
One St Cyril of Jerusalem thought the earth was flat, because he thought the Bible taught that.
One St Basil refused to discuss shape of earth (flat, globe, basket shape, whatever) because Bible gave no answer.
One St Augustine showed how globe shape of earth squared very well with the story of the Fourth Day.
One Origen and one St Augustine laughed at the inflated time scales of Egyptian paganism - "they pretend to know very old history in order to pretend having very profound knowledge" was their take on OLd Earth Paganism.
The first Young Earth Creationist intellectuals among Christians were the Church Fathers.
After St Peter who said that in the last days people will by their own fault ignore the Flood of Noah. And Christ referred to first couple.
Evolution is a fact that you can deny, but not successfully. [said he]
I would say that General Theory of Evolution - common descent of all plants and animals from one or few one celled organisms - is a theory that you can hold, but not successfully.
Take a bite at this one:
Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
Dualistic Platonism put a damper on the way people would explore the material universe?
Your history sucks!
Where was that? When was that? What present day historians - about that period, mind you - say that about that place and time?
Whose arsehole are you kissing?
Neither of these is extremely well tested.
You cannot claim they are better tested than 2+2=4.
You cannot claim they are better tested than fact that portal tides do not follow exactly the astronomically predicted tides immediately.
You cannot claim they are better tested than medicine (including Evolution in the sense of bacteria developing new characteristics, including non-Evolution because of certain blockages against chromosomal numbers changing.
You cannot claim they are better tested than water freezing or melting at Celsius zero and boiling or condensing at Celsius 100. At sea level. With lower boiling temperature on the Andes.
And so on.
Now, you also claim homosexuality is somethng one is born with.
Your arguments rather prove that a boy can be born feminized, but that does neither damn him to sodomy nor barr him from natural coitus.
You confuse androgynous temperament with homosexuality as if they were the same thing.
They are not.
However, it remains a matter of sadness that a man at least materially succeeding the Apostles should use the kind of false certainties of certain infidels, and I came across a reference to one Theilhard de Chardin when reading.
I hope Lazar Puhalo is not an adept of this false Jesuit, a shame to the frock of St Ignatius, who even went so far as to think that the psychism of the biological species is cause of their future evolution - a theory which apart from leading straight to Hell also seems to come straight from Babylon, where human shaped gods like Anu seem to have developed from snake shaped gods.
If you read French, do take a look at the references to Theilhard de Chardin in my response to an evolutionist propaganda book:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Quelques Mirages et Contrevérités de Cédric Grimoult, avec mes critiques
Mairie du III, Paris
St Mary Magdalene, from whom
Our Lord drove out seven unclean spirits,
and who had the privilege to see Him after Resurrection
(Heavenly Birthplace close to Marseille)