GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS

6 words does not refute the OP.If it is what you assert then produce an intelligent refutation according to your known abilities and lets debate. The OP ended with Jesus telling His disciples to take the gospel FIRST to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.This means whoever are the first hearers of the gospel are the lost sheep.The OP ends by saying the multitudes forsaken by God in Hosea 1 are the lost sheep. THESE people became the first christians "sons of the living God"/Hosea 1.In response, you leap from the First Century and arbitrarily invoke a racist cult refutation of British Israelism.Just because some nut (Richard Brothers) claimed origin to Davidic lineage secular historians have succeeded in covering the voluminous truth that the 10 tribes broke free from captivity and there descendants ended up becoming the Celtic nations of Europe.You then cite the error of Dr. Armstrong and his racial identity teaching to somehow refute 1900 years of history.If you did it innocently then I believe it.The subject has nothing to do with racism or cults but the truth of history as to where the 10 tribes ended up and God keeping His promise to Abraham.WT.

Hi Loudmouth: This is a massive question you ask.Dr. Scott has spent his whole life answering it.The intent of the OP is not to open this can.The OP ended in the First Century for this very purpose.If you really want to know then go to Dr. Scott's website and listen to any of the "Lost Tribes" teachings/picture and sound.Or you can go here for an overview:http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/celts01.htmThe point is that the 10 tribes, who finally broke free of Assyrian captivity, did not go back to Palestine. They fanned out across Eurasia. This large exodus of Shemites evolved into the Celtic nations. To think these people just evaporated as lame ass traditional history asserts defies intelligence. The evidence disproves this assumption. Absolutely.Hosea says they will NOT look like God's people.They will look "forsaken"They will look "as not having mercy"THEN in this state, Hosea (speaking for God) says "they will become sons of the living God"Christians are known as "sons of God".All of Paul's missionary journeys - wherever he went - these people were the persons of Hosea 1.The heraldry symbols of Great Britain alone is excellent evidence.While I have you:Your knowledge in science is far superior to mine.I could never win a debate with you even with a cross subject including the Bible.Please allow me to decline without harm ?sincerely,WT.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-05-2004 04:31 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

Just because some nut . . .

---

OK. Perhaps you agree that the evidence presented by the persons listed in my post was nothing more than a silly notion. Fair enough. And if you're not using their evidence, I won't call your idea a silly notion.But if you're not using their evidence, you should present some of your own. So far I've seen nothing but an assertion that the captives of Israel eventually left Assyria, spread across Europe and ended up in the British Isles.Your next assertion is that the apostles then first spread the word to the descendents of these Israelites. But you don't say who and you don't say where. Europe? The British Isles?You have every right to believe whatever pleases you, but I have other things to do than wade through a website on this topic.It's your assertion; your OP; tell us where the apostles first went and who they preached to that are allegedly descendents of the Israelites.Amlodhi

quote:

---

This is a massive question you ask.

​

Dr. Scott has spent his whole life answering it.

​

The intent of the OP is not to open this can.

---

You have somewhat made your case that these lost tribes are the legit people who are to multiply "as the stars", but you have yet to answer the most obvious question, where those tribes are now. The OP DOES open this can of worms and it is up to you to support this claim with evidence. Perhaps you could mention some of the more supportive evidence and we could discuss here. I find it boring to argue with a website.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As noted by another poster, the genetic markers just aren't there
  —Loudmouth

---

​

The evidence disproves this assumption.

---

What evidence? You are begging the question.

quote:

---

Hosea says they will NOT look like God's people.

​

They will look "forsaken"

​

They will look "as not having mercy"

​

THEN in this state, Hosea (speaking for God) says "they will become sons of the living God"

​

Christians are known as "sons of God".

---

I am not talking about their "look", I am talking about oral traditions passed through the generations about their cultural history. This seems to be lacking outside of the tribes of Judah (ie Jews). It would seem probable, at least to me, that these lost tribes would have held on to their previous heritage and roots of this heritage would be evident in the cultures of Celts and other Europeans.

Hi Loudmouth: The OP establishes that the Jews are persons belonging to the two-tribe Southern Kingdom of Judah.The OP establishes that Judah WAS NOT the recipient of the Genesis 22 promise.Do you understand and agree to this ?If you do then this means the 10 ten tribe Northern Kingdom, also known as House of Israel IS NOT COMPRISED OF JEWS.It was this kingdom which was carried away by the Assyrians.This means when these peoples escaped Assyria THEY WERE NOT JEWS NOR DID THEY LOOK LIKE JEWS.The tribe of Dan eventually clustered in the region we now call Denmark.Denmark/DANmark.Dan's descendants were also thinking of their patriarchal father when naming New Troy - LonDAN/London.The Iberia peninsula.Ibeer/Hebeer/Hebrew."Dan" means "judge" and the Danes certainly pride themselves as the worlds arbiters.I have to suddenly go off line.....to be continued.....

The "Danes" are form the tribe of Dan. hmmm... That's an interesting twist on history.London is New troy? Perhaps in legend.

How did the Lost Tribes get across the Sambatyon?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In addition to my earlier inquiry, maybe you can clarify this:

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE

​

. . . the 10 ten tribe Northern Kingdom, also known as House of Israel IS NOT COMPRISED OF JEWS.

​

This means when these peoples escaped Assyria THEY WERE NOT JEWS NOR DID THEY LOOK LIKE JEWS

---

Judah (Southern Kingdom) was the offspring of Jacob and Leah.Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun (Northern Kingdom) were also the offspring of Jacob and Leah.Benjamin (Southern Kingdom) was the offspring of Jacob and Rachel (Leah's full sister).Joseph, who sired Ephraim & Manasseh (Northern Kingdom) was also the offspring of Jacob and Rachel (Leah's full sister)Dan and Naphtali were the offspring of Jacob and Bilhah (concubine)Gad and Asher were the offspring of Jacob and Zilpah (concubine)Thus Judah (Southern Kingdom) and Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun (Northern Kingdom) all had Jacob as father and Leah as mother.Benjamin (Southern Kingdom) and Joseph, who sired Ephraim & Manasseh (Northern Kingdom), both had Jacob as father and Rachel as mother. (Plus, Leah and Rachel were full sisters).So why wouldn't these people look alike? Why, for instance, would Judah (your Jews) not look like his full brothers (your Israelites)?Thus, the only way the "Israelites" would have not "looked like" the "Jews" when they left Assyria is if they did a whole lot of interbreeding with the Assyrians while they were there. Is this what you are trying to say?Or since Ephraim and Manasseh had an Egyptian mother, maybe they looked like Egyptians?Can you clarify just what you're trying to say here?AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-06-2004 12:41 AM

quote:

---

The OP establishes that the Jews are persons belonging to the two-tribe Southern Kingdom of Judah.

​

The OP establishes that Judah WAS NOT the recipient of the Genesis 22 promise.

​

Do you understand and agree to this ?

---

I agree that the verses you listed could be used in a way that supports your views. To tell you the truth, I don't think that this is what was meant by the biblical authors. I find it hard to believe that the people who controlled the writings of the Bible would intentionaly keep passages that did not include them as the prophesised children of God. IOW, even though you may be able to support your position through selective quotation, this doesn't mean that this was the position of the biblical authors. However, I am willing to concede that it is possible and really a matter of philosophy/theology. However, you also make claims that require science, specifically the migration of the lost tribes. This is not a matter of philosophy/theology but a matter of archaeology.

quote:

---

The tribe of Dan eventually clustered in the region we now call Denmark.

​

Denmark/DANmark.

---

Morroco/Moroni, therefore Morroco was founded by the people in the Book of Mormon.

quote:

---

Dan's descendants were also thinking of their patriarchal father when naming New Troy - LonDAN/London.

---

London/Don Cornelius, therefore London was founded by Soul Train.

quote:

---

The Iberia peninsula.

​

Ibeer/Hebeer/Hebrew.

---

Ibeer/beer, founded by Norm from Cheers.

quote:

---

"Dan" means "judge" and the Danes certainly pride themselves as the worlds arbiters.

---

This is only a recent role that the Danes have filled, it is not a tradition.Sorry, but I find this argument very weak. As I have shown, I could use the same logic and find alternate foundings for each of these sights. I need something more substantial than this.

You have zero knowledge about my claims but you have no problem about making conclusions.I gave tidbits of DIRECT evidence and you clown them with your silly made-up renditions.I supplied no argument - just known facts that are so obviously true you just assert they are not.ALL of my claims are proven facts. Source: Dr. Gene Scott.How often do I intrude into science topics and act the same way you are acting here ? You cannot have it both ways.Either challenge the veracity of the Biblical renderings in the OP OR accept them as facts.I prefer to debate the content of the OP BEFORE we go into history after the OP ends.Archaeology does support my claims AND it is only a component. Secular historians have deliberately mislead the world BECAUSE they do not want the world to know how God has kept His word to Abraham.This is also proof of Satan controlling the world just as the Bible claims.

This is an angry rant/attack on the messenger/arguing the man BECAUSE you do not like the claims/evidence/conclusions.What is your obsession against a teacher ?Are you self-taught ?You are really advocating "independance".Independance = losers.Every accomplished person comes from some school of thought/learning.Paul the Apostle was raised at the feet of Gemaliel - the brightest Jewish scholar of his day.I have been raised at the feet of Dr. Scott because he is the brightest scholar of our day - period.Don't agree ?So what.Prove his research wrong or the personal insults against him amount to an admission that you can't - thats why you argue the man.I have no desire to pass N.T. geographical test in your eyes.Wherever Paul went first = House of Israel descendants.Don't believe it then refute Dr. Scott and his 80,000 volume library just on church history.I am not on trial with your condescending attitude of superiority. The inferior doesn't question the superior. You ask - respectfully or you are just looking to assert ignorance and waste my time.I have given you the respect your knowledge deserves - want me to cut and paste that excerpt ?In turn, this topic has you suddenly departing normal parameters of civility. I am fresh out of a topic where all my opponents got a free ride from the evidenciary rules of source cite - a topic where I voluntarily refrained from using Dr. Scott only because he is an oral source and not written. I argued with one hand tied behind my back and still demolished my opponents with pure evidence.My source for this topic IS ALL Dr. Scott and his research, which consists of sources of already published books - books which "mainstream" historians completely ignore BECAUSE it proves the Bible.IF you want to debate then I have been known to debate the Bible.But get this superior condescending attitude out of your posts or I will just interpret it to mean the evidence has you infuriated and flame-war is your only intent of which I want no part of.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-06-2004 04:03 PM

quote:

---

You have zero knowledge about my claims but you have no problem about making conclusions.

​

I gave tidbits of DIRECT evidence and you clown them with your silly made-up renditions.

---

I was working with what you gave me. You have to admit that the evidence you did give me was weak at best. As far as I can tell, your renditions are as made up as mine. It wasn't meant as an attack, only as a method of showing the weakness of the arguments you were making. I was showing, through a little humour, how I could just as easily use the same logic and reasoning to construct obviously wrong origins for these areas and cities.And also, if you don't want your ideas challenged then don't post them. Anything I write you are free to attack using logic and reasoning, I have nothing against that. I don't expect anything I write to be handled with kid gloves. I am not making fun of you, I am making fun of the logic that went into constructing your argument. Judging by previous interactions, I am sure we could spend many an hour tipping back a few pints. Don't worry man, I am not out to get you.

quote:

---

ALL of my claims are proven facts. Source: Dr. Gene Scott.

---

The facts have nothing to do with the source. Facts stand by themselves and should not need the support of a researchers credibility. Although, as humans, we are more likely to believe one person over another, this in no way makes one thing fact and another untrue. If Dr. Scott's arguments are valid then you shouldn't even have to mention his name, in the same way that the Newton's Laws of Motion do not rely on Newton ever being alive. If Newton were found to be a child molesting trial lawyer, his laws would still be just as reliable.

quote:

---

You cannot have it both ways.

​

Either challenge the veracity of the Biblical renderings in the OP OR accept them as facts.

---

I want it one way, supported with evidence throughout. You claim that the lost tribes spread through Europe, and I want evidence that they did. What is wrong with that? So far, you have put forth that syllabic similarities between European towns and Hebrew words are support this migration. I feel that this evidence is very weak since the origination of those names could have come from anywhere. Something like "New Jerusalem" might support your theory, but London/LonDAN, therefore semitic origins is a pretty weak argument. However, I fully expect that you have more than these simplistic arguments and look forward to further discussion.

quote:

---

I prefer to debate the content of the OP BEFORE we go into history after the OP ends.

---

The OP states that a prophesy was fulfilled, that the Seed of Abraham would number as the stars. You claim that the Seed are Europeans. I am challenging the OP in that regard. I concede that the Seed of Abraham could in fact have been referring to these lost tribes, but I am challenging the notion that they are the originators of European culture and civilizations.I would expect you would level the same opposition against Mormons. They claim that part of the Seed of Abraham moved to North America. I am holding your views in the same light. In this light, I could argue that Morroco/Moroni supports the migration of the original Mormons towards North America. Could you please show me how my notion is wrong and yours is right?

WILLOWTREE,Why are you going back and dredging up that quote when, in my subsequent posts, I agreed that it was unfair to link you with those others and that I would give your evidence a clean hearing?It's not that old, 'excuse to cut and run' thing, is it?Amlodhi

You obviously didn't really read my previous post.Those word origins are not made up.You just assert otherwise.If you cannot accept the obvious then I will not waste my time.I also gave you my source, if I didn't then you would of demanded it, but because I gave it you then dismissed it - double standard.Your made up silly word renderings is an insult to what I said with source cite.I have no desire to go further based upon your reaction to evidence with source cite. In other words, nothing matters - whats the use.Argue the OP and your opinion of how it is wrong or remain silent.If you evade a Biblical argument to the OP then you are accepting the OP as fact.How much knowledge did you have in O.T. promise tracing prior to this debate ?The content of your posts says zero, so shouldn't you be a little more humble ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-06-2004 04:16 PM

That was my point concerning your attitude.But I see that it has changed.I will return to the post before last and answer your points.