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

The Book of Ezra, which was supposedly written c. 440 BC, has Israel together with Judah. Were they scattered again after returning from exile? Ten Lost Tribes??

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I think the ten lost tribes of Israel are all either dead or so thoughly ingrained into the population it wouldn't be worth trying to track them down. unless...Maybe if they extracted DNA from King David's femur,(if they find his skeleton) then they can compare that DNA to people who claim to be descendants...(their mouth swab DNA)...Just kind of fun to think about... I Saw a PBS "Mysteries of the Dead special" early this morning where they tracked down DNA from "Amazon" Scythian warrior women's 2,500 yr old bones, and compared it to a modern day mongol-Kazak girl who had recessive blond hair - her DNA result was such a close match to the bones, it was presumed that they had a common ancestor.

quote:

---

I have no desire to go further based upon your reaction to evidence with source cite. In other words, nothing matters - whats the use.

---

It is common practice to summarize the arguments made by your cited reference. It is against forum rules to use a website reference as your de facto argument. I don't argue against inanimate websites, I argue and debate with other people. I am hoping that you present the data yourself for what I have learned is called "British Israelism". I am finding that it is a very interesting topic, but needless to say there is a lot of info to go through. Perhaps you could summarize the arguments and cite the actual evidence. I say this because I went to the website you listed and it contained very vague references to the evidence at hand. It talked of Assyrian tablets without even listing what they actually say. I am hoping for a discussion, even if heated, about the evidence that supports the ten tribes being the ancestors of the Britians. You have already made the claim, I am just asking that you support it with your own words.

quote:

---

How much knowledge did you have in O.T. promise tracing prior to this debate ?

---

None. I am hoping that you will supply some of that knowledge in your own words instead of saying "Its absolute fact, see this site".

um. there are very very few celts anywhere... if you mean caucasians, you mean angles and saxons... they are not celtic at all.

Agreed. They probably did to a certain extent.But, as we both agree their mothers were not all the same.What is of utmost importance is the fact that the unified kingdom split after the death of Solomon.Jeroboam became king of the North/House of Israel.Rehoboam retained his crown but only over two tribes.The Southern Kingdom of Judah, capitol of Jerusalem, thus commenced on its own and gradually developed its own unique ethnic traits.ONLY after this split did the residents of the South become known as "Jews".As hundreds of years progressed, and as God punished both kingdoms for idol worship, the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyrian captivity, but the Southern did from their forced sojourn.Circa Ezra/Nehemiah, these returning exiles from Babylon, that is peoples of the Southern Kingdom became the Jewish presence in Palestine in Christ's day. "Pharisees", hence children of Pharez, Genesis 38, the line of Judah which did not inherit the birthright spoken of by Jacob in Genesis 49. Zarah got the birthright per Genesis 38 red cord. The Zarahites were the hated Shepard King rulers which ruled in Egypt post-Joseph. When a Pharoah "who knew not Joseph" came to power these egyptians evicted the Zarahites.Where did the Zarahites go ?Lets leave that there for right now.We have two kingdoms and hundreds and hundreds of years of history between them respectively.How could they all look the same after hundreds of years and the kingdom split ?The point is that the Jews are soley descended from the Southern Kingdom. Their racial heritage and traits, circa Ezra/Nehemiah ONWARDS is HOW WE expect a Jew to look like ?The Northern 10 tribe kingdom were already resettled by the Assyrians circa 720 BC. From this point in history onwards they are dispersed and long separated from their "Jewish" brethern.Why would they look "Jewish" ? NO !Why would they embrace that whom they hated ?How could a mass population group look exclusively "Jewish" ?All Jews are Hebrews/Israelites but not all Hebrews/Israelites are Jews. Good point.Aryan racist slugs constantly brag how they descend from the birthright children.Once I confronted one of these assholes and pointed out that E/M were half egyptian going out the gate.Of course, this person almost strangled me in response.The fact that they had an egyptian mother proves my point about the two kingdoms could not all possiby retain "Jewish" looks.What I am saying is that the ten tribe kingdom are not Jews nor were they ever.They are Hebrews/Israelites who parted ways in history two separate times, and the last time has them dispersed across Eurasia.We assume Hebrews/Israelites all were Jews and look as such (whatever that means).This means the Jews, per the OP, per the O.T. were not birthright recipients of Abrahamic promises EXCEPT the right to rule and make laws. (Genesis 49:10) This is why so many Jews are in government - God enabling a race to keep His word per Genesis 49.Joseph got everything else in the birthright which included all the promises to Abraham.Jews are a tiny worldwide minority.The Celtic-Anglo-Saxon nations and the U.S.A. are the descendants of the dispersed 10 tribes. This is why ALL the promises given to Abraham are fulfilled in the British Empire/U.S.A.Thomas Paine recognized this fact and lost his faith thinking the Jews were the recipients of the Abrahamic promises. Ingersoll the Great Atheist acknowledged this fact also but attributed it to be promise-failure = no God exists.U.S.A. in prophecy ?Everytime the Bible refers to "House of Israel" and THEIR Northern tribe promises it means those DESCENDANTS = U.S.A./Britain.And a secular world at large focuses on a cult to totally dismiss the truth of history - how weak and dishonest.Who else "possesses the gates of their enemies" ?The Jews certainly do not.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-06-2004 05:42 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

The Northern 10 tribe kingdom were already resettled by the Assyrians circa 720 BC. From this point in history onwards they are dispersed and long separated from their "Jewish" brethern.

---

Agreed. But it's not your recounting of history that I have a problem with. It's your subsequent leap to a (so far) unsupported conclusion.One important thing to keep in mind is the difference between the Assyrian relocation of Israel and the later Babylonian captivity of Judah. When the Assyrians relocated (most) of the population of the Northern Kingdom, they basically swapped populatons. The population of Israel was relocated beyond the Euphrates to the previously captured areas around Nineveh, i.e Babylonia (Iraq), and Persia (Iran). While at the same time, the previously conquered populations around Babylonia and Persia were conversely relocated to the former territory of Israel. Whereas, during the Babylonian captivity of Judah, this wasn't done and Judah is described as being desolate during this period.Also, the Assyrians retained control of these areas from c. 746 - 609 B.C. So, by 609 B.C., the Israelites had been in their relocated dwellings for c. 111 yrs. There was no decree for them to return to their homeland and they had no homeland to return to because the other group had now been living in and possessing (the former) Israelite land for also c. 111 yrs. Further, in c. 609 B.C. the Assyrians lost control of these territories precisely because the Babylonians gained control of them. Thus, it was only about 20 yrs. later, in c. 586 B.C., that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and the final groups of Judeans were marched off to captivity in Babylon.Note then, that when Cyrus conquered Babylon in c. 539 B.C., the Judeans had only been away from their homeland approximately 50+/- years, they had a royal decree to return to their homeland, reclaim their land and rebuild their temple. At this same point in time, however, the Israelites had now been in their relocation for c. 161 yrs. and they had no homeland to return to because it had been owned and occupied by the other group for that same 161 yrs.Even so, records tell us that many of the Judeans opted not to return to Judea. They had built comfortable lives for themselves in Babylon and saw no reason to uproot themselves again. Thus, it is not the least surprising that after 161 yrs. and with no homeland to reclaim, the Israelites would have remained in their relocation.In book 11, chapter 5, section 2 of Josephus' Antiquities, he recounts a history of the Jews preparing to leave the Babylonian territory for Judea and makes a specific reference to Israel:

quote:

---

. . .when these Jews understood what piety the king had toward God . . . many of them took their effects with them and came to Babylon (the city), as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country (i.e. Babylonia, the country they had been dispersed to by Assyria c. 161 years before.); wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers. {all emphases added}

---

Now, Josephus says that the Israelites "remained in that country", and "beyond the Euphrates" is a phrase that refers to Persia/Babylonia, i.e. "the other side of the river". Map Courtesy of Goodnews Christian MinistryHe also says that there are only two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans. Thus, "till now" and "subject to the Romans" alerts us that Josephus is here talking about his own time, i.e. 1st century A.D. Maps, Archaeology And Sources - Charting The Reach Of The Roman Empire In Jesus' Time | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBSIn the above image, we see the extent of the Roman Empire as it existed in the 1st century. It is only Judah and Benjamin within this empire; Israel is still across the Euphrates. http://www.pbs.org/...line/shows/religion/maps/apostles.htmlThe above is a color coded map depicting the areas where the apostles spread the gospel. You will note that it is entirely within the region subject to the Romans and at no point is it "beyond the Euphrates".Thus, I am still looking for an answer to the question of where the apostles first went to and who they talked to in order to fulfill the command to "go to the lost sheep of Israel".Also, any evidence backing the claim that at some point the Israelites left the region of Persia/Babylonia and traveled up around the Black Sea, into Russia and subsequently found their way to the British Isles.Concise answers to these questions, please. I know the history; let's cut to the chase.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-07-2004 03:03 PM

Agreed. The Northern Kingdom was employed as a buffer state between the Assyrians and their future-to-be-conquerers the Medo-Persians.And the Jewish desolation period of a desolate land equals the seventy years of sabbath land violation that occurred during the previous 490 years. Agreed.BECAUSE Hosea 1 says God DIVORCED Israel/North. 70 years - not 50. Agreed.BECAUSE per Hosea 1, God did NOT divorce Judah/South, He only punished her. Here you suddenly inter-mix the two kingdoms.Judah/South, because of Daniel, was enabled by God to return to Palestine at the end of the 70 year punishment period. But like you said, they chose to remain in "enemy" territory and snub the invitation by God.Israel/North was divorced by God and "forsaken" by "temporary" dispersal out into Eurasia. It doesn't matter if their was a homeland or not to come back to. Hosea clearly tells us that God divorced Israel/North. Who were the Galatians ?Answer: Fierce Celtic marauders who pushed their way through Asia minor.According to Dr. Scott these "barbarians" (the general term used by history) would SING prior to battle in unison as for their enemy to hear. The above passage evidences the ORIGIN of an army SINGING prior to battle.They remembered how God delivered them according to promise as their forefathers believed the promised deliverance and sang praises to God as they marched toward the enemy.Tacitis records the impassioned speech of captured Selurian King Carodoc (Caracticus in Roman) who withstood many years of war with Rome only to be betrayed by a woman.Unprecedented, the Roman Senate grants their arch-enemy house arrest in Rome instead of execution.Carodoc's daughter - Gladys is adopted by the Emperor and re-named Claudia, who marries Roman Senator Rufus Pudens, they have a son named Linus. That Selurian household in Rome is the household that Paul addresses his Roman letter to. Rufus Pudens was Paul's brother.Linus is the first name on all Pope lists.That Selurian household were christian converts DESCENDANTS of the Zarahites who eventually established themselves in Britain.The Zarahites were evicted by the egyptians about 100 years prior to the Exodus.Brutus/British. Founded New Troy/LonDAN. Descendant of Darda/Dardanus, descendant of Judah.(1Kings 4:31)The Pharez line is in Rome (Rufus Pudens) and it is joined with the Zarah line by marriage = Christians.I contend the [edit: unprecedented] refusal to execute Caradoc was a miracle by God and His control over history to keep His word to Abraham, Joseph, Judah, and David is stunning.I know I have trampled across vast swaths of history, but it is nonetheless true.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-07-2004 09:37 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

70 years - not 50.

---

Yes, I know the story. However:There were two deportations of Judea. The first was in 597 B.C. at the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. At this time, Jehoiakim and some of the more distinguished residents were deported.The second deportation took place upon the destruction of the city and the temple in 586 B.C.597 - 539 = 58 years and 586 - 539 = 47 years.Thus, I rounded the timespan to "approximately" 50 years. However, it was c. 70 years from the destruction of the 1st temple to the building of the 2nd one.Believe what you like; I prefer to count.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

Here you suddenly inter-mix the two kingdoms.

---

No, here I contrast & compare the two kingdoms. Please take the time to comprehend what is written.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amlodhi:

​

Even so, records tell us that many of the Judeans opted not to return to Judea. They had built comfortable lives for themselves in Babylon and saw no reason to uproot themselves again. Thus, it is not the least surprising that after 161 yrs. and with no homeland to reclaim, the Israelites would have remained in their relocation.

---

Read carefully and you will see: many of the Judeans opted to stay in Babylon even though they had only been there some 50 +/- years (or even 70 years if you really want).Thus, in comparison, it is no surprise that the Israelites would opt to stay since they had been there 161 years by this time and had no unoccupied homeland to return to.Just wanted to clear up these minor issues for now. Thank you for presenting some of the bases for doctor Scott's theory. I will evaluate these issues ASAP.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-07-2004 10:17 PM

Od course you realize this old theory is not really from Gene Scott, rather just one he's revived. One of the early pushers of this idea was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Church of God." Like Gene Scott he was mostly a promoter, had his own paid television show and wrote and pushed books and lectures on the subject.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Understood. I suspected you were making a comparison, but it is absolutely crucial to always distinguish between the two kingdoms, therefore I "tested" to see.You contrasted and compared: I understand and agree. I agree.Maybe if they all returned en mass the subsequent taking of Jerusalem by gentile infidels would of been thwarted. But they didn't.They roamed into Europe, like true nomads/wanderers/Hebrews.Amlodhi:Are you familiar with heraldry ?late,WT

quote:

---

Originally posted by jar

​

Of course you realize this old theory . . .

---

Hi jar,Yes, I do realize. (See my post #11)However, WILLOWTREE has disclaimed any connection between the bases for these earlier theories and those of Dr. Scott. Thus, I agreed that, rather than impute guilt by association, I would give Dr. Scott's premises a clean hearing.Also, in all fairness, I think few scholars would claim that the Northern tribes have no history. IIRC, E.A. Speiser has indeed suggested some etymological connections to "Bit-Hu-um-ri-a" in the Assyrian records.Thus, for starters, I'm just trying to get a handle on exactly what is being claimed here and why. Then, we shall see.Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

They roamed into Europe, like true nomads/wanderers/Hebrews.

---

I understand your position. However, the ultimate fate of the Northern tribes is the topic under discussion. Not an agreed upon and foregone conclusion.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

Are you familiar with heraldry ?

---

Yes.Also, as briefly touched upon in my last post, I have, and/or have access to, most of the information contained in the ancient Assyrian records. I am in the process of locating Speiser's (and other's) etymological suggestions for review. Then I will take a look at the artifactual citations you have provided. This may take a couple of days. As they say, the devil is in the details.Amlodhi

Speaking of the Lost Tribes, do you believe there is any hope of expanding the Cohanim experiment to include other of the tribes? In addition, has any Cohanim studies been used within the European Populations?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi jar,I'm only passingly familiar with the Cohanim lineage DNA typing and I don't even remember where I first read about it. IIRC, it was Dr. Michael Hammer's discovery (I remember the name because I thought it coincidental that it is also the name of a fictitious private investigator, i.e. Mike Hammer). Also that it is based on male Y chromosome similarities.I'm unaware of any such general study (either for this priestly line or otherwise) on European populations to date, but as to the ability to do DNA mapping to identify any populations descended from the Northern tribes, I don't think there is any question. I'm reasonably sure we already have the techniques, it will only be a matter of employing them.It will be an interesting avenue of near-future research into this question. I'm glad you brought it up.Amlodhi

I think it is fascinating stuff and unlike the Brit-Am story, one that is actually done scientificly and well documanted. Here's a link to the PBS tanscript of some of the program. At least in this one case, we certainly know that at least one of the Lost Tribes migrated first to Yemen and then further south to Southern Africa.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion