Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Christianity Board Christian Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Where's Judah's Royal Sceptre Today?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
Many struggle with understanding the following prophecy from Jacob, especially Jews I'd say. But what does it mean?

Gen 49:10-12
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
12 His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.
(KJV)


a) "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah... until Shiloh come"

Shiloh there is put for our Lord Jesus; it's a symbolic name for The Saviour. A "sceptre" means a royal sceptre, like a truncheon, or wand a king is handed at his/her coronation to represent authority of rule. Concerning Israel, that sceptre is about kings of the tribe of Judah of the house of David.

Who doesn't already know that the royal sceptre rule of one from Judah ended in Jerusalem with king Zedekiah when the king of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem and Judah captive to Babylon? That was something like, 2600 years ago (roughly).

King Zedekiah was of David's house, of Judah. All his son heirs were killed by the king of Babylon. Zedekiah's eyes were poked out and he was carried in chains to Babylon to die there.

Since that time, there has never since been one of the house of David to sit upon a throne in Jerusalem, not for around 2600 years.

God promised this to David...

2 Sam 7:12-17
12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for My name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15 But My mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.
(KJV)

Did you know that means God promised to establish David's throne upon earth forever? Now that doesn't mean ending it and it only manifesting on earth again once Christ returns. It means that it would continue through all generations... UNTIL Shiloh (Jesus) returns.

So what happened? Why is David's throne no longer in Jerusalem, not since 2600 years? And that especially since Gen.49:10 says it would continue with Judah until... Shiloh (Jesus) come?

For God's Word not to be broken per this Promise, David's throne must still be established on earth somewhere, even today. Where is it?


  • 0

#2
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
I would have thought unbelievers of the "tares" here on this forum would have jumped on this by now. Guess I'll have to give it more time.


  • 0

#3
TheWarIs1

TheWarIs1

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts
I believe in Tares and Wheat

I believe that Judah did in fact rule as promised to David til long after Christ came.
Zedikiah was the last king of Judah in Israel to rule.
but Judah was ruling elsewhere at this time and the Kings went on til Christ birth and afterward. 2Ki 19:31

Where? Ireland.

In 1581 Vincenzio Galilei (father of the astronomer, Galileo Galilei) wrote that the Irish believed themselves descended from David, King of Israel, and that was why they used a harp as their symbol.
Galilei comes from the Hebrew word for Galilee

Ireland is full of symbols of Judah.
The writings of Irish bards say that King Miles` (Milesius) and his people arrived in Ireland in 1700bc
That was 300 year before Moses(scriptures were not even written)
the Kings sons were Eremon, Er and Eber.
Two of those sons names were names of Judahites

Eber / Iber is the name from where Hebrew name originated.

the only Kings to rule from Zedikiahs time are the Irish/Scottish and English Kings which fulfills prophecy to David.
the Jews do not have Kings nor are they real Hebrews.
They are fulfilling prophecy of Esau and trying to steal back the inheritance.

Eze 11:15 Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the LORD: unto us is this land given in possession.

Eze 36:5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.


Edmoites attacked and plunder Jerusalem and then moved to Hebron when Judah was taken to Babylon according to scripture.



Judah is not the Jews today
2nd kings 16 is the first mention of Jews and Judah was ruling Jerusalem at this time.
Syria was Allies with their kindred in Judah and went and attacked the Jews and drove them from Elath in Edom on the Red Sea.


Jews in Israel today own most of their old homeland in Edom down to Elath along with Land that was giving to Jacob.,
  • 0
~Most of the church is satisfied with milk

#4
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA

I believe in Tares and Wheat
....

the only Kings to rule from Zedikiahs time are the Irish/Scottish and English Kings which fulfills prophecy to David.
the Jews do not have Kings nor are they real Hebrews.
They are fulfilling prophecy of Esau and trying to steal back the inheritance.

Edmoites attacked and plunder Jerusalem and then moved to Hebron when Judah was taken to Babylon according to scripture.

Judah is not the Jews today
2nd kings 16 is the first mention of Jews and Judah was ruling Jerusalem at this time.
Syria was Allies with their kindred in Judah and went and attacked the Jews and drove them from Elath in Edom on the Red Sea.


That is exactly the subject I was talking about when Joshua and others allied with him started jumping off into anti-Semitic land.

Except you went farther than I did, because I believe the origin of the name 'Jew' DOES come only from the tribe of Judah. In 2 Kings 16 the KJV word "Jews" is Yehuwdiy in the Hebrew, which is derived from the name Judah (Yehuwdah).

The Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.) said those who returned to Jerusalem after the 70 years Babylon captivity is when they first began to call themselves by the title of Jew. He said all the non-Israelite peoples which also returned with them from Babylon and dwelt in Judea, also took the name Jew. I believe that name was used to characterize only the remnant that returned to Jerusalem to build the second temple, city, and walls, and... that it was used to make them distinct from their brethren of the House of Israel (ten tribes) that had been taken captive to Assyria around 200 years before that.


  • 0

#5
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
A picture tells a thousand words. This is actually suitable for framing as I have one hung up on my dining room wall:

http://1.bp.blogspot...600-h/GQEII.jpg
  • 0

Besides bible study and prophecy, my interests include mathematics, astronomy, genealogy and I am also a Gnomonist.


#6
WhiteKnuckle

WhiteKnuckle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 866 posts

A picture tells a thousand words. This is actually suitable for framing as I have one hung up on my dining room wall:

http://1.bp.blogspot...600-h/GQEII.jpg



Just out of curiosity,,,, What power does the queen have?
  • 0

#7
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts

Just out of curiosity,,,, What power does the queen have?


Ask her. They have a royal web site.
  • 0

Besides bible study and prophecy, my interests include mathematics, astronomy, genealogy and I am also a Gnomonist.


#8
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
Well, tim_from_pa has let the cat out of the bag. (thanks for the link Tim)

That lineage chart of kings and queens is about God's fulfillment of His promise to David and his house, and to the tribe of Judah, involving David's throne on earth existing to all generations (2 Samuel 7).

I don't ask others to believe it just because I do. That there exists much confusion about it among Christ's Body shows it is not yet time for its truth to be fully known. And if we got a personal invitation by the royal family for a private interview and asked them about this matter, they still probably wouldn't respond to it, even though they have kept genealogical records since ancient times.

The other part in God's Birthright specifically to the tribe of Judah was as lawgiver (Genesis 49:10). That is another one of the responsibilities of the house of David, and is allied with what the KJV translators called King James as Defender Of The Faith (see letter by the translators to King James in the 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible).


  • 0

#9
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
Well Veteran, Lord knows I have way too many cats around my house in the country here, so I don't mind giving up one or two now and then. This cat did indeed bring a nice genealogical chart with her as she jumped out of her bag. :lol:
  • 0

Besides bible study and prophecy, my interests include mathematics, astronomy, genealogy and I am also a Gnomonist.


#10
Tehilah BaAretz

Tehilah BaAretz

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
  • LocationJerusalem, Israel
To answer the OP, Judah's royal scepter is currently standing at the right hand of the Father.

  • 0

#11
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA

Ezek 21:26-27
26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until He come Whose right it is; and I will give it Him.
(KJV)


Gen 49:10-12
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be.
11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
(KJV)

Christ (Shiloh) is not to reign on earth until His second coming. The throne of David is not to depart from the tribe of Judah on earth until Christ's second coming to sit in it. That Gen.49:10 verse declares that is also when the gathering of the people to Him is.


Jer 23:5-6
5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
(KJV)

Jer 33:20-21
20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
21 Then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, My ministers.
(KJV)

God's covenant with David was that he would always have one of his seed always reign upon his throne on earth. That includes the time now, even until Christ returns.


Jer 33:25-26
25 Thus saith the LORD; If My covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.
(KJV)

Ezek 17:22-24
22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
23 In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.
(KJV)

That was about Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem being removed from David's throne by the king of Babylon, and God's promise to take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and crop off a tender one that is planted upon an high mountain and eminent. And thus the high tree (Zedekiah) was brought down, and the low tree (tender one) exalted. Zedekiah was the last king of the house of David to sit upon a throne in Jerusalem. Still today, David's throne is no longer there, and Christ has yet to come to sit upon it on earth, which is a requirement of Christ coming to inherit it.


  • 0

#12
Tehilah BaAretz

Tehilah BaAretz

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
  • LocationJerusalem, Israel
It is not a small point that you added "on earth" to your interpretation of the above scriptures. That is the critical point and you invented it. Let's stick with the Bible if we are trying to discuss what it says in the Bible. Your post is not valid!

  • 0

#13
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA

It is not a small point that you added "on earth" to your interpretation of the above scriptures. That is the critical point and you invented it. Let's stick with the Bible if we are trying to discuss what it says in the Bible. Your post is not valid!



Not an invention, but The Word of God...

Ezek 21:26-27
26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until He come Whose right it is; and I will give it Him.
(KJV)

David's throne on earth was to be overturned three times, on earth, until He comes (Christ) Whose right it is. The first overturn was king Zedekiah of Judah in Jerusalem during Jeremiah the prophet's days.

Matt 25:31-33
31 When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall he sit upon the throne of His glory:
32 And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
(KJV)


  • 0

#14
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
I'll put in my two cents worth. The bible definitely teaches that the Davidic throne would continue all generations. "Even if" we could somehow convolute that to mean that the throne was "moved up to heaven" (not that I can find any such scripture that says that) at Christ's first coming and his ascension, there's still the serious problem of a lack of kings between Zedekiah and Christ which amounts to a whopping 600 years about--- not a small span of time. Sometimes I think God deliberately made that gap of time to silence the argument that the throne was moved up to heaven at Christ's first coming. If there was a King in Israel up to Christ's first coming, and then he took the scepter, then maybe we could believe that, although it would still be on the fringe or border. But that did not happen.

This is why the Psalmist in psalm 89 was so upset in verse 39. His world was falling apart because earlier in the psalm he understood the throne to continue to all generations and that God would NEVER remove his covenant from King David. Had the writer of the psalm understood it to be a conditional covenant only, then he would have begged the Lord for forgiveness and to reestablish the throne again. Instead, he takes on a rather melancholy tone totally baffled as to why this occurred, but nevertheless states his faith in the Lord. The writer of the psalm also stated another interesting thing: the sun and moon will witness to this eternal throne of David. Now the sun and moon do not witness to heavenly things, as the heavens are above them, but rather to earth below, thus showing this is an earthly throne. The throne that Christ has now is on the right hand of God the father --- this relates to the throne on the mercy seat of the Ark. That's in heaven, not on earth.

That's the whole point in Christ coming back to earth, to usher in His government, bring salvation to an even greater number of people (as the church is only the firstfruits now) and to take the throne of David. Somehow it's not proper exegesis to conclude that the throne was for awhile vacant, then moved up to heaven for awhile, and then back down to earth. That makes no sense whatsoever.
  • 0

Besides bible study and prophecy, my interests include mathematics, astronomy, genealogy and I am also a Gnomonist.


#15
Tehilah BaAretz

Tehilah BaAretz

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
  • LocationJerusalem, Israel
The Ezekiel passage is interesting in the Hebrew. It does indeed declare that there will be ruin three times. What makes it interesting is that the declaration places the ruin directly into the hands (or on the head) of Messiah and allows Him to administer justice. That, of course, is exactly what He did when He suffered death and the grave for three days.

  • 0

#16
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts

The Ezekiel passage is interesting in the Hebrew. It does indeed declare that there will be ruin three times. What makes it interesting is that the declaration places the ruin directly into the hands (or on the head) of Messiah and allows Him to administer justice. That, of course, is exactly what He did when He suffered death and the grave for three days.


Yes, I agree that there would be a change in order or overturning 3 times. However, I'm not sure how you arrived at relating the 3 days of Messiah's time in the grave to 3 overturns, albeit an interesting thought.
  • 0

Besides bible study and prophecy, my interests include mathematics, astronomy, genealogy and I am also a Gnomonist.


#17
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
The thing about the Ezekiel 17 & 21 Scripture is that it includes a prophecy of a tender one that would be cropped off from Zedekiah ("high cedar"), and it would be planted in a high mountain and eminent. And then Ezek.21 gives the prophecy of it being overturned three times before Christ comes to inherit it.

The end of Zedekiah's reign of the house of David in Jerusalem started the first 'overturn', and ended David's throne in Jerusalem where it has never been established since 586 B.C. David's throne then had to be planted somewhere else involving that "tender one" just to complete that first 'overturn'. And then after that, there was to be two more overturns afterwards. THREE times the high tree would be made low, and the low tree exalted, until Christ's return to sit upon it. That agrees with the Genesis 49:10 Scripture that states the royal sceptre would not depart from Judah until Shiloh (Messiah) comes for the gathering of the people to Him (i.e, Christ's second coming).

The "tender one" of Ezek.17 that was to be planted is cropped off from young branches from the high cedar. King Zedekiah of Judah was represented by that high cedar. Jeremiah the prophet was kinsman redeemer to Zedekiah's daughters who escaped the Babylon captivity, who went into Egypt with Jeremiah and Jeremiah's scribe Baruch, where Biblically they are not heard of again. All of king Zedekiah's sons were killed by the king of Babylon, and Zedekiah himself died in Babylon.

God's commission to Jeremiah the prophet was as a prophet to "the nations", in order "to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant (Jer.1:10). In the Book of Jeremiah, it's all about that part to root out, pull down, destroy, and throw down. But nothing is mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah about the last part of Jeremiah's commission "to build, and to plant".

So did God fail with giving Jeremiah the commission to also "build, and to plant", pointing to him as guardian over "the king's daughters" of Zedekiah that escaped the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon? (Jer.43)

Another important matter about the "riddle" in Ezek.17. God said He gave that as a "riddle" to "the house of Israel" (ten tribes), not to the house of Judah (three tribes). The house of Israel by that time only applied to the ten tribes of Israel that were scattered abroad already. And God told Ezekiel that He made him a watchman to the "house of Israel" (Ezek.3:17).

So, before anyone could rightly claim that David's earthly throne was directly moved to Heaven with Christ after His crucifixion, its first overturn from Zedekiah to where it was to be planted would have had to been completed, and then two more overturns after the first would also have had to been completed. Those 3 overturns were not completed until long after Christ's first coming and Ascension to The Father.


Edited by veteran, 05 June 2011 - 04:52 PM.

  • 0

#18
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
Veteran:

I also want to point out something about Ezekiel 17 that you may or may not know. Oftentimes those of us who believe in the transference of the throne claim that the "tender twig" is in the feminine and therefore can't refer to Messiah (masculine). However, there is even BETTER proof this is not talking about Messiah. The proof is simply this: That's not Messiah's family line! The family line there is talking about Zedekiah's linage, and possibly Jehoiachin. We know that Messiah did not come from Zedekiah's line. As for Jehoiachin, Messiah can't come from that, either, as that line was cursed (see Jeremiah 22:30) Yet, one or the other of these lineages is the subject of Ezekiel 17.

This is why there was a virgin birth since the genealogy in Matthew, although the legal line, was also the cursed line. Jesus had to physically come thru another (Mary's) line in Luke. Being from another line in Luke, he did not have this curse, but adopted to Joseph's line In Matthew entitled Jesus legally to the throne.

In short, what I am saying is that King Solomon was not Jesus' father, but rather a great, great great....uncle.

This line in Luke, from David's son Nathan, IMO is what Isaiah 11 calls the "branch". We know of a lot of "branch" prophecies in the OT that refer to Christ. A branch implies ANOTHER genealogical lineage. And that branch was Jesse -- David --Nathan but still with legal ties to Jesse -- David -- Solomon. But the Queen today is descended from Solomon and Zedekiah. Of course Zedekiah was not cursed like his Nephew Jehoiachin, but that is the lineage God chosen by Ezekiel 17 to hold the throne until "he's whose right it is".

On a side note here.... I love the Queen dearly, and pray for her constantly. Being an American that broke away from British rule, I find that ironic that I care for the Queen more than many of her citizens do.
  • 0

Besides bible study and prophecy, my interests include mathematics, astronomy, genealogy and I am also a Gnomonist.


#19
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA

Veteran:

I also want to point out something about Ezekiel 17 that you may or may not know. Oftentimes those of us who believe in the transference of the throne claim that the "tender twig" is in the feminine and therefore can't refer to Messiah (masculine). However, there is even BETTER proof this is not talking about Messiah. The proof is simply this: That's not Messiah's family line! The family line there is talking about Zedekiah's linage, and possibly Jehoiachin. We know that Messiah did not come from Zedekiah's line. As for Jehoiachin, Messiah can't come from that, either, as that line was cursed (see Jeremiah 22:30) Yet, one or the other of these lineages is the subject of Ezekiel 17.

This is why there was a virgin birth since the genealogy in Matthew, although the legal line, was also the cursed line. Jesus had to physically come thru another (Mary's) line in Luke. Being from another line in Luke, he did not have this curse, but adopted to Joseph's line In Matthew entitled Jesus legally to the throne.

In short, what I am saying is that King Solomon was not Jesus' father, but rather a great, great great....uncle.

This line in Luke, from David's son Nathan, IMO is what Isaiah 11 calls the "branch". We know of a lot of "branch" prophecies in the OT that refer to Christ. A branch implies ANOTHER genealogical lineage. And that branch was Jesse -- David --Nathan but still with legal ties to Jesse -- David -- Solomon. But the Queen today is descended from Solomon and Zedekiah. Of course Zedekiah was not cursed like his Nephew Jehoiachin, but that is the lineage God chosen by Ezekiel 17 to hold the throne until "he's whose right it is".

On a side note here.... I love the Queen dearly, and pray for her constantly. Being an American that broke away from British rule, I find that ironic that I care for the Queen more than many of her citizens do.




I understand our Lord's lineage came from David's son Nathan (Luke 3), and not Solomon's (Matt.1). That's one of the matters some of Judah tries to use to prove Jesus is not the proper heir of David's throne.

I consider the Queen as having lineage from the daughters of Zedekiah, and from the sons of Zarah (scarlet branch), both the Pharez and Zarah lines joined together. I know what you mean about the Queen, and I agree. Propaganda against the royal family has been going on for centuries now. But maybe God has blinded many so as to create a good contrast when Christ Jesus does appear and inherits David's throne on earth.

  • 0

#20
Tehilah BaAretz

Tehilah BaAretz

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
  • LocationJerusalem, Israel
The Ezekiel passage does not say overturn. It says ruin or destruction or possibly the separation of the body and soul. It is a reference to death.

  • 0

#21
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA

Ezek 21:26-27
26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.
(KJV)

It's pretty obvious that The LORD is not using that term for "overturn" in the sense of total destruction, since He says with that overturn idea He will give that diadem (crown) in final to One Who comes Whose right it is, pointing to Christ Jesus. Even the idea He gave with 3 overturns reveals its existence throughout those overturns. In the "it shall be no more" phrase, the KJV translators added the word "more". This shall not be the same is the better translation.

Also, with God's prophecy about the diadem being removed from Zedekiah, the last king of Judah in Jerusalem, He included that idea of "this shall not be the same" linked with the overturn prophecy. That shows He would exalt the "low tree" after removing the crown from Zedekiah in Jerusalem...

Ezek 17:22-24
22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
23 In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.
(KJV)

Thus the overturn prophecy is NOT about a literal destruction of the diadem (crown), but the wearer of it being changed until Christ comes to receive it.



  • 0

#22
KillCarneyKlansman

KillCarneyKlansman

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 382 posts
The only problem is that the Tea Tephi Jeremiah Ireland scenario seem to be fabricated.

http://www.cai.org/b...i-never-existed
"Although the different characters are mentioned in the ancient Irish documents, they would appear 'many centuries apart', and are fitted together in a 'totally imaginary reconstruction'."

http://www.biblemyst...ry/jeremiah.htm
the prophet Jeremiah (in the company of his scribe Baruch) took King Zedekiah's daughter to Ireland where she founded a line of Davidic kings that has continued on down to this day. What corroborating evidence can be found in the Irish annals to back up this assertion? What FACTS can be gleaned from the ancient sources to show this compelling story to be true? Shocking as it may sound, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER in either the Irish or the Scottish annals -- not even a TRACE of Jeremiah, Tea-Tephi and the ever-faithful Baruch! The TRUTH is, if Jeremiah ever brought Zedekiah's daughter to Ireland, it went TOTALLY UNNOTICED in the ancient Irish annals.

Although the royal house of Britain is NOT directly descended from King David of Israel through the MALE LINE, it is, in all likelihood, descended from King David through a wife or female descendant of this king who married into the line of Brutus. If this was the case, Queen Elizabeth is descended from Judah through BOTH the lines of Zarah and Pharez. The line of Zarah was brought to Ireland by Heremon the grandson of Calcol; and the line of Pharez came to Britain when Joseph of Arimathea founded the Church of God at Glastonbury.
  • 0

#23
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA

The only problem is that the Tea Tephi Jeremiah Ireland scenario seem to be fabricated.

http://www.cai.org/b...i-never-existed
"Although the different characters are mentioned in the ancient Irish documents, they would appear 'many centuries apart', and are fitted together in a 'totally imaginary reconstruction'."


There's a dating error in the Irish Annals Of The Four Masters that can easily be found by going back from the time of Christ's birth as recorded in the Annals, to the time of the flood as also recorded in the Annals. The dating is around 500 years off, and when it is corrected, the Annals align with the Bible prophecy era of Jeremiah and the king's daughters. But Jeremiah and the king's daughters is only one aspect of the Bible prophecy and Britain's relation to it.



Although the royal house of Britain is NOT directly descended from King David of Israel through the MALE LINE, it is, in all likelihood, descended from King David through a wife or female descendant of this king who married into the line of Brutus. If this was the case, Queen Elizabeth is descended from Judah through BOTH the lines of Zarah and Pharez. The line of Zarah was brought to Ireland by Heremon the grandson of Calcol; and the line of Pharez came to Britain when Joseph of Arimathea founded the Church of God at Glastonbury.


The Annals speak of one Scota as Pharaoh's daughter, and that she married one from Milesian line from ancient Spain. The name Pharaoh is simply another name in ancient Egypt for king. So if there's no link to ancient Egypt in the Annals, why did it use the daughter of Pharaoh as an identifier? It's because Egypt is where Jeremiah and Zedekiah's daughters were taken captive to, and never mentioned again per Bible history. Yet the prophecy is sure, because God told Jeremiah He made him a prophet to the nations, to not only tear down and destroy with Jerusalem's destruction, but also 'to build and to plant'.

One of ancient Ireland's names comes from Scota, as it was anciently known as Scotia (and also as Hiberia which is associated with the word Hebrew). Some of the royal family and people of ancient Ireland moved to Alba and married within the royal lines there, and that nation became known as Scotland. In ancient Spain, one of its chief cities was Zarragossa, a city that still exists. It means 'stronghold or fort of Zarah'. I've seen the city's ancient ruins, and I was told by Spaniards there it was one of the ancient capitals of Spain. Most likely, that's where Apostle Paul was speaking of going when he determined to visit the brethren in Spain per the Book of Romans.

All this is going to remain a mystery until Christ returns. It is not for the majority to yet know and understand. But strange how it keeps popping up throughout western generations among Christ's Church in the West, like those in Christ are supposed to now know. Bible prophecy supports it, and there's still plenty of evidence to support that prophecy.



  • 0

#24
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
Doppelganger is a good buddy of mine, and Lord knows I think the world of him. However, the source he quoted from I'm familiar with is from John D. Keyser, a BI offshoot, or I should now say American-Israelite. He disputes the Tea Tephi story as Doppelganger already mentioned and he reverses the roles of the USA and Britain as being Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The latter never bothered me much since both are from the birthright house of Joseph if we want to simplify the genealogy a tad. However, I still adhered to the idea that the USA is politcally the house of Manasseh who became "a people" but is also peopled by many from Ephraim, so there is truth to that.

Regarding the more important Tea Tephi story, I always held to the belief that even if the Tea Tephi story was false, some princess from the lineage of Zedekiah had to marry from the Pharez lineage to the Zarah lineage. Why do I say that? The reason is simply because Ezekiel 17 says so. If we look at the "branches" being mentioned, we see that the prophet is really talking about a genealogy. There is no other genealogy regarding a princess other than Zedekiah's lineage. In addition, there are two biblical references that the "king's daughters" were with Jeremiah as if God wanted that known for a reason.

So, even if there was no "Tea Tephi", one of those daughters still had to make it to a King of Zarah's lineage because it has biblical mention. I just use the name "Tea Tephi" to give a personality to one of the daughters of the Davidic lineage menitioned in the bible whether or not she was actually called that does not matter.

In the end, John D. Keyser does believe in the transference of the throne of David, but the manner is just different. I forgot how he traced his genealogy, but the bottom line was that the British Throne likewise went back to the house of David and the end result is the same.

Even "British-Israelism" has it's "denominations" as does mainline Christendom, and as such never had a real super-strong central authority. As a matter of fact, British-Israelism is not a specific branch of Christianity the way we think of Lutherans, Baptists, and so forth. The belief permeated into those denominations so that a British-Israelite person may identify himself as a "Baptist" but still believes in that teaching. It's a subset of a larger core of beliefs and permeated every denomination.
  • 0

Besides bible study and prophecy, my interests include mathematics, astronomy, genealogy and I am also a Gnomonist.


#25
KillCarneyKlansman

KillCarneyKlansman

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 382 posts
Believe me pushing this is isue is friutless, even I used to believe this, but having done enough homework to realize, it can't possibly be true ...
http://en.wikipedia....ings_of_Britain

The Tea Tephi British-monarchy link is also found in J. H. Allen's Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright (1902, p. 251). A central tenet of British Israelism is that the British monarchy is from the Davidic line and the legend of Tea Tephi from the 19th century attempted to legitimise this claim. Tea Tephi however has never been traced to an extant Irish source before the 19th century and critics assert she was purely a British Israelite invention.

A collection of alleged bardic traditions and Irish manuscripts which detail Tea Tephi were published by J. A. Goodchild in 1897 as The Book of Tephi, the work is however considered pseudo-historical or a forgery. There is though a queen called Tea (singular) in Irish mythology who appears in the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland. She is described as the wife of Érimón a Míl Espáine (Milesian) and dated to 1700 BC (Geoffrey Keating: 1287 BC).

These dates are inconsistent with the British Israelite literature which date Tea Tephi to the 6th century BC, but later British Israelites such as Herman Hoeh (Compendium of World History, 1970) claimed that the Milesian Royal House (including Tea) was from an earlier blood descendant of the Davidic Line who entered Britain around 1000 BC. In 2001, the British-Israel-World Federation wrote an article claiming they no longer subscribed to these two identifications, but still strongly stick to the belief that the British monarchy is of Judahite origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah
name Jeremiah
Born c. 655 BC
Died 586 B.C.

http://en.wikipedia....ings_of_Ireland
Kings in the Baile Chuind
Óengarb Túathal Máelgarb (d. circa 544) Uí Néill
Aíd probably Áed mac Ainmuirech (d. 598) Uí Néill/Cenél Conaill; seemingly misplaced chronologically
Aíd Olláin probably Áed Uaridnach (d. 612) Uí Néill/Cenél nEógain; seemingly misplaced chronologically
Diermait Diarmait mac Cerbaill (d. circa 565) Uí Néill? Origins obscure.
Feáchno Fiachnae mac Báetáin (d. 626), or perhaps Fiachnae mac Feradaig, father of Suibne Menn Cruthin/Dál nAraidi, or Uí Néill/Cenél nEógain

Milesian High Kings
Eber Finn and Érimón 1287-1286 BC 1700 BC
Érimón 1286-1272 BC 1700-1684 BC

Ollom Fotla 943-913 BC 1318-1278 BC

Eochu Uairches 5th century BC 633-621 BC 856-844 BC
Eochu Fíadmuine and Conaing Bececlach 5th century BC 621-616 BC 844-839 BC
Lugaid Lámderg and Conaing Bececlach 5th century BC 616-609 BC 839-832 BC
Conaing Bececlach (alone) 5th century BC 609-599 BC 832-812 BC
Art mac Lugdach 5th century BC 599-593 BC 812-806 BC
Fíachu Tolgrach 593-586 BC 806-796 BC
Ailill Finn 5th-4th century BC 586-577 BC 796-785 BC
Eochu mac Ailella 5th-4th century BC 577-570 BC

Báetán mac Ninnedo 567
Áed mac Ainmuirech 568-594
Áed Sláine and Colmán Rímid 595-600
Áed Uaridnach 601-607
Máel Coba mac Áedo 608-610
Suibne Menn 611-623

http://en.wikipedia....C3%89rim%C3%B3n
Geoffrey Keating dates Erimon's reign from 1287-1272 BC, the Annals of the Four Masters from 1700 to 1684 BC BC.

http://en.wikipedia....Driel_F%C3%A1id
Irial Fáid ("the prophet"), the youngest son of Érimón by his wife Tea, according to medieval Irish legends and historical traditions, became High King of Ireland after killing Ér, Orba, Ferón and Fergna, sons of Éber Finn, in the Battle of Cul Martha, in revenge for their killing of his brothers Luigne and Laigne. He cleared twelve plains, dug seven royal forts, and fought four battles against the Fomorians. Having ruled for ten years, he died at Mag Muaide, and was succeeded by his son Ethriel. The Lebor Gabála Érenn places his death during the reign of Tautanes in Assyria (1191-1182 BC according to Jerome's Chronicon). Geoffrey Keating dates his reign from 1269 to 1259 BC,[3] the Annals of the Four Masters from 1681-1671 BC

http://en.wikipedia....om_Adam_and_Eve
Some claims, supported, for instance, by the Orange Street Congregational Church and The British Israel World Federation, go that the British Royal Family originates from the kings of Scotland, which come from the kings of Argyleshire, which trace back to the kings of Ireland. Ultimately, according to British Israelism, a portion of the monarchy of Ireland which is linked with those of Britain starts with Tea Tephi, a supposed daughter of Zedekiah, last king of Judah. British Israelists argue that Tea Tephi was taken from Jerusalem to Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah. Once there, British Israelists argue she married Érimón and by him had a child named Íriel Fáid, who became the next High King of Ireland, and was succeeded by his son Ethriel, and so on until the British Royal Family is reached.

Another claim consists of descent from the Viking founder of the Norman dynasty, king Rollo, who married into certain European royalty which had lines tracing back to Joseph of Arimathea.
[The Norman Claim is probably true, But steeped in myth and legend also [Arimathea thru Arthur, but taken as a whole is a given fact], But their are plenty of Rabbinic sources that point to this]

http://en.wikipedia....itish_Israelism
Several early Jewish sources support Two House Theology, which is a key tenet of British Israelism. However these sources do not state where the ten lost tribes of Israel are located. The Babylonian Talmud (Mishnah) Sanhedrin 110b for example notes:

...THE TEN TRIBES WILL NOT RETURN [TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL], FOR IT IS SAID, AND CAST THEM INTO ANOTHER LAND, AS IS THIS DAY: JUST AS THE DAY GOES AND DOES NOT RETURN, SO THEY TOO WENT AND WILL NOT RETURN: THIS IS R. AKIBA'S VIEW. R. ELIEZER SAID: AS THIS DAY — JUST AS THE DAY DARKENS AND THEN BECOMES LIGHT AGAIN, SO THE TEN TRIBES — EVEN AS IT WENT DARK FOR THEM, SO WILL IT BECOME LIGHT FOR THEM

Many Jews however have never subscribed to Two House Theology, and continue to reject this doctrine and therefore oppose British Israelism. Despite this, there have been historic Jews who advocated Two House Theology. Several Medieval Rabbis and Jewish Torah scholars began to locate the ten lost tribes, but the location greatly varied. Modern British Israelites often quote from Maimonides who wrote:

...I believe the Ten Tribes to be in various parts of Europe.

Brit-Am has compiled many more of these Rabbinic sources, including the testimony of Nahmanides who placed the lost tribes of Israel in France and Northern Europe.
Moses ben Isaac Edrehi

Moses ben Isaac Edrehi (1774–1842), a Moroccan-born Rabbi and Kabbalist believed the lost tribes of Israel were also located in Europe, writing in his Historical Account Of The Ten Tribes (1836):

...Orteleus, that great geographer, giving the description of Tartary, notices the kingdom of Arsareth, where the Ten Tribes, retiring, succeeded [other] Scythian inhabitants, and took the name Gauther [Goths], because they were very jealous for the glory of God. In another place, he found the Naphtalites, who had their hordes there. He also discovered the tribe of Dan in the north, which has preserved its name. ...They further add, that the remains of ancient Israel were more numerous here than in Muscovy and Poland - from which it was concluded, that their habitation was fixed in Tartary [ie Scythia] from whence they passed into neighbouring places ... it is no wonder to find the Ten Tribes dispersed there; since it was no great way to go from Assyria, whither they were transplanted, having only Armenia betwixt them.

Jewish scholar Dr. Moses Margoliouth in his History of the Jews in Great Britain (1851) placed the ten lost tribes in Western Europe:

...the Israelites must have visited the western countries (of Europe) in the days of Solomon.

I know Jeremiah after he returned, had to intervene because an Aramean-Arabo portion of the Persian Forces what to steal the kings daughter. During this time the Persian Empire was in a state of revolt at times. Like with Darius.

There are a few posibilities though, they married those who went down to Egypt with them. Ahab's defunct line [Gypsy Kings]. Possibly through Scythpolis or Arsareth she married a Northern Tribes King. Possibly a Foriegn King associated with Egypt.
[The other line probably also crosses with David Solomon and Nathan in Iberia earlier]

... AND WHAT TIM_FROM_PA SAID ... Skeptics, don't understand the Bible, and anyone associated with BI is considered a fraud. But you, Tim and me know this cannot be true. They focus on small details, hoping to catch mistakes. But the big picture tells a different story. Here my thread on some of these connections ...

http://www.christian...l/page__st__150

PS - I just found this also -> http://www.shee-eire...Tara)/Page1.htm

Edited by Dj Doppleganger, 18 July 2011 - 02:05 PM.

  • 0

#26
veteran

veteran

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,509 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
Regardless of what one 'wants' to believe, Scota, daughter of Pharaoh is mentioned in the Irish Annals Of The Four Masters. And because a dating error exists in the Annals, that's enough to scratch assumptions that relationship with prophecy about Jeremiah and the king's daughters in the Annals cannot be possible.

This matter is not just about the country of Britain anyway, thus many of the anti-British-Israel speakers have not begun to make a dent in the archaeological evidence of the ten tribes migrating into middle and western Europe in stages after their captivity in Assyria (which also aligns with the Bible prophecy about the ten tribes).

If God's Word is followed accurately and believed as written, then the Bible prophecy is certain in that the tribe of Ephraim literally became "a multitude of nations", and that David's throne must still be existing on earth all the way up to Christ's return (Gen.48; Gen.49). Those multitude of nations can only point to nations founded by Israelites of the ten tribes, because Ephraim was separated from Judah after Solomon's days, never to return to the Holy Land nor joined back in with Judah. There exists a great number of Bible prophecies showing the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel" (ten tribes) will remain apart until Messiah returns to join a believing remnant of both of them back together again as one Israel again.

A multitude of Jewish rabbi have testified of that fact of their separation into two separate houses per the prophecy, some of them believing the ten tribes of Israel are irrevocably lost, others of them understanding that the ten tribes are a great number of people but still lost, but will one day be gathered back to the holy lands of promise.

This matter keeps popping up among non-theological historical figures in the histories of Ireland, Scotland, and England. And it's still popping up today among God's people in the West. The reason for that is NOT because of the so-called Tea Tephi myth, but because of Bible prophecy God gave to the ten tribes of Israel and from archaeological/anthropological evidences that gives weight to it.

Yet it is clearly not 'given' for all of God's people to know and understand today. It is enough that God keeps reminding a remnant, because He promised a remnant of Israel would always know in all generations.

That Britain is involved in the ten tribes prophecies is only a tip of the iceberg within all the Bible prophecy about lost Israel. The royal families in Europe are all connected from the same bloodlines, and so whoever came up with the term 'British-Israel' that's really an oxymoron term, because the Biblical prophecy about Ephraim involves more than one nation per the Gen.48 prophecy, and even more than the nation than Ephraim's brother Manasseh would become. Ephraim was the head tribe over the rest of the ten tribes in the northern Israelite kingdom called "the house of Israel" per 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles.

Some here on this forum may at sometime be given the unction by The Holy Spirit to want to know the Bible history about the ten lost tribes of Israel, and be given the patience to follow the Bible prophecies about it that will properly show how to look for the evidence, and also how to interpret the existing evidence in the world today. And if the Bible student remains in that study to the end, they will discover that the foundation of the western Christian nations of history was the end result of it, and its eventual prophetic purpose in prep for Christ's future Kingdom at His return. But the unbelieving remnants of Israel will never know nor understand it, not until Christ's return. That's when ALL nations will then know and understand it.




  • 0

#27
TheWarIs1

TheWarIs1

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts
Yes Vet is correct.
The real Judah ruled in Ireland til Christ(Shiloh) came.
They don't hold the royal sceptre today.

The sceptre moved to Ephraims of England descendants I believe.


the joining of the two sticks occurred in England and is represented in the English Coat of arms.

Eze 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
Eze 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.


Posted Image
Ephraim and Judah together here
with the Harp of David and the Royal crown which was of Hebrew origins.
X & T was the last letter in old Hebrew & Phoenician
It could have been written either way.
The last letter "Tau" meant Completion.

Iberi was the early name of Ireland later changed by the Romans to Hibernia

Iberi or Eberi
  • 0
~Most of the church is satisfied with milk

#28
TheWarIs1

TheWarIs1

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts



There's a dating error in the Irish Annals Of The Four Masters that can easily be found by going back from the time of Christ's birth as recorded in the Annals, to the time of the flood as also recorded in the Annals. The dating is around 500 years off, and when it is corrected, the Annals align with the Bible prophecy era of Jeremiah and the king's daughters. But Jeremiah and the king's daughters is only one aspect of the Bible prophecy and Britain's relation to it.





The Annals speak of one Scota as Pharaoh's daughter, and that she married one from Milesian line from ancient Spain. The name Pharaoh is simply another name in ancient Egypt for king. So if there's no link to ancient Egypt in the Annals, why did it use the daughter of Pharaoh as an identifier? It's because Egypt is where Jeremiah and Zedekiah's daughters were taken captive to, and never mentioned again per Bible history. Yet the prophecy is sure, because God told Jeremiah He made him a prophet to the nations, to not only tear down and destroy with Jerusalem's destruction, but also 'to build and to plant'.

One of ancient Ireland's names comes from Scota, as it was anciently known as Scotia (and also as Hiberia which is associated with the word Hebrew). Some of the royal family and people of ancient Ireland moved to Alba and married within the royal lines there, and that nation became known as Scotland. In ancient Spain, one of its chief cities was Zarragossa, a city that still exists. It means 'stronghold or fort of Zarah'. I've seen the city's ancient ruins, and I was told by Spaniards there it was one of the ancient capitals of Spain. Most likely, that's where Apostle Paul was speaking of going when he determined to visit the brethren in Spain per the Book of Romans.

All this is going to remain a mystery until Christ returns. It is not for the majority to yet know and understand. But strange how it keeps popping up throughout western generations among Christ's Church in the West, like those in Christ are supposed to now know. Bible prophecy supports it, and there's still plenty of evidence to support that prophecy.



King Milesius was Scythian who left Egypt for Spain and after a short time there they moved on to Ireland.
Ireland was to be called Scotland originally and Scotland was called Alba(White) and later became Scotland

ZeraGoza is a city in Spain that King Milesius created and in Hebrew Goza means Stronghold. Like Modern Goza strip.
Zeragoza is stronghold of Zerah.

Zerah was a twin son son of Judah who was known as in scripture as the twin of Perez one who breeched the contract and thee Red Hand ofd Parez became a known phrase.

http://upload.wikime..._banner.svg.png
the Red Hand seen in old flag of Northern Ireland with the Royal Crown of Israel and the Star of David with a Hebrew Tau(Cross)
The Red hand has always been associated with Part of Ireland as well as the Harp of David



A bible prophecy of the breech of contract was to be unbreeched or repaired in the future. (Happened in Ireland/Scotland)

It is believed that TiaTelphi of the Perez line married a Judaites Irishmen who fulfilled this reunion of the twins. (repair the breech)
Perez happens to be a common Spanish name.



My ancestors were of the old Irish Bardic traditions and were of the last known bards when it was put to a stop.
Bards kept up with the family history.

There is a ebook telling the history of my family going all the way back to Heremon, one of the sons of King Milesius who ruled Connaught or the Western portion or Ireland.
O'Daily's, O'Neils, O'Connors are 3 big Irish names that came from this lineage.
  • 0
~Most of the church is satisfied with milk

#29
TheWarIs1

TheWarIs1

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts
In the 18th century, historians discovered exciting proof of Phoenician-Celtic ties. An ancient Roman dramatist, Titus Maccius Plautus (died 184 B.C.) wrote a play, the Penulus, in which he placed then-current Phoenician into the speech of one of his characters. In the 18th century, linguists noticed the great similarity between that Phoenician and the early Irish Celtic language. In the adjacent box is a sample given by historian Thomas Moore's, History of Ireland, showing the connection between these languages. Leading 18th and 19th century scholars, such as Gen. Charles Vallancey, Lord Rosse, and Sir William Betham, also wrote on this subject. Vallancey, for instance, speaks of, "The great affinity found in many words, nay whole lines and sentences of this speech, between the Punic [Phoenician] and the Irish."



THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE EARLY IRISH-CELTIC AND THE SECOND CENTURY, B.C., Phoenician LANGUAGE, AS SHOWN BY THE PENULUS OF PLAUTUS:

PHOENICIAN OF PLAUTUS:
Byth lym mo thym nociothii nel ech an ti daisc machon
Ys i do iebrim thyfe lyth chy lya chon temlyph ula.


EARLY IRISH-CELTIC:
Beth liom' mo thime nociaithe, niel ach an ti dairie mae coinne
Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla.





Celtic scholar, John Rhys, gives strong evidences of Canaanite colonization of the British isles in ancient times. "Ireland was known as IBERION," he says. (p. 201) The ancient name of the Israelites was Ibri or Iberi (modern: Canaanite), which is derived from the name, "EBER," or "HEBER," an ancestor and patriarch of that people. Mr. Rhys continues, "...in Ireland it was Ivernii in Ptolomy's time; and he mentions a town there called Ivernis, and a river Ivernios. To these may be added various forms of the name of the island, such as Juvenal's Iuuerna, distorted more usually by the Romans into Hibernia... THEIR EPONYMOUS ANCESTOR... is variously called... EBER, Emer, and HEBER." (ibid., p. 262-3)


HISTORICAL LINK

One last fascinating connection with ancient Israel is suggested by Professor Rhys, who says, "the (Celtic) Kymry were for some time indifferently called Cambria or Cumbria, the Welsh word on which they are based being, as now written, Cymru... and is there pronounced nearly as an Englishman would treat it if spelled Kumry or KUMRI." (p. 142) As students of Old Testament history well know, "Kumri" or "Khumri" was the name of the Israelites in Assyrian texts. (see, "The March of Archaeology," by C.W. Ceram, p. 216) The virtual identity in spelling and sound between the Israelite "Khumri," and the Celtic "Kymry," is too much of a coincidence to not have a relationship. Taken with the many other evidences, religious and cultural, the connection between the ancient Canaanites and Celts is too strong to be ignored. In fact, it is no longer a question of, "Did Canaanites settle in Europe in ancient times?" but only a question of, "How many of the people of Europe are of Canaanite descent?" When considering the great numbers of early Israelites (see our tract, "The Real Diaspora"), and the Biblical promise of multitudinous seed (Gen. 26:4, 32:12; Exo. 32:13; Jer. 33:22, etc.), it is evident that the Canaanite-Celtic connection is very significant.

Irish history records three main waves of colonization to that isle in ancient times: the Firbolgs, of whom little is known, the Tuatha de Danaan (meaning 'Tribe of Dan'; tuath means 'tribe'), and the Milesians. The latter two peoples are known to have originated in Asia and may have been related. "The Story Of Ireland," by A.M. Sullivan, tells us this: "The Milesian colony... were an Eastern people...they had passed from land to land, from the shores of Asia across the wide expanse of southern Europe, bearing aloft through all their wanderings the Sacred Banner, which symbolized to them at once their origin and their mission, the blessing and the promise given to their race. This celebrated standard, the 'Sacred Banner of the Milesians,' was a flag on which was represented a dead serpent and the rod of Moses..." (p.12) The Milesians traced their ancestry to "Gadelius," whose grandfather was "the king of Scythia." (p.13) Interestingly, Gad was a son of the patriarch Jacob, and his descendants formed one of the tribes of Israel. The Greek word Scythia is derived from the Semitic, Skutha, and the Persian, Saca, which are terms for the Israelites. (see our tract, "The Real Diaspora") As if this wasn't enough coincidence, the serpent symbol was a family heraldic emblem of the Israelite tribe of Dan (Gen. 49:17), whose descendants have been traced by leading modern American archaeologist Cyrus Gordon, to the Tuatha de Danaan of early Ireland! (see "Before Columbus," pp. 108-111)



Read more: The Canaanite Phoenician-CELTIC CONNECTION http://phoenicia.org...l#ixzz1Sj8oyMAe


My opinion is the Canaanite name creates some confusion.
These should be called Israelites though they lived in the land of Canaan.
Canaanites were another people that were supposed to be run out of the land though they influenced the false religion of the Israelites

If these Israealites bred with tthe Canaanites then they wouldn't be much diffeerent than Esuas descendants.
  • 0
~Most of the church is satisfied with milk




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users