Anglo-Israelism, odds and ends

[flaja]

If you believe in Anglo-Israelism, how do you explain the Gog/Magog attack on Israel? Will it be an attack on the nation-state of Israel or will it be on the People of Israel? If the latter, will the Jews of the nation-state of Israel be involved even though Jacob adopted his grandsons through Joseph and gave them his personal name of Israel? Also how do you explain all of the prophecies about the Israelites returning to their ancestral lands? Do these prophecies apply to the Jews only, to the Anglo-Americans only or to both the Jews and the Anglo-Americans?And lastly, how do you explain the sealing of the 144000 people from the tribes of Israel in Revelation? If the last week of the 70 weeks in Daniel applies to the Jews, how do you explain the role that the non-Jewish tribes will play in the sealing in Revelation?

 

[flaja]

I thought everybody here was an expert on Anglo-Israelism, but yet no one can venture answers to my questions.

 

[tim_from_pa]

Nobody's answering you because you are coming to this forum with a chip on your shoulder. I'm starting to think you are a troll. What is so threatening about believing God kept his promises to his people Israel (including the Jew)? And what do verses like Genesis 35:11, and Genesis 48:19 then mean to you? The Jew, Christ or the church never fulfilled those prophecies. Are you a Christian? I'm not so sure. If you cannot believe that God is miraculous enough to keep Israel as the Bible clearly says, and if you cannot believe earthly things, then how will you believe heavenly things? It takes far more faith to believe in the resurrection than to believe that God takes care of His people and they simply migrated elsewhere. I know the answers to your questions, but you are not getting the pleasure --- as a matter of fact, you are one of the very few with the honors of getting placed on my ignore list. So don't even bother answering because you are just hissing into the wind.

 

[Christina]

(flaja;56135)
I thought everybody here was an expert on Anglo-Israelism, but yet no one can venture answers to my questions.
Do your homework please instead of throwing out opinions with no facts to back them up if you want to debate then have a fact we can debate. Opinions are nothing but that and everyone has one. JUDAH'S SCEPTREAND JOSEPH'S BIRTHRIGHT http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/PDF%20...0Birthright.pdfI might also suggest you learn Eze 17 if one can understand the riddle and the parable you will find documentationhttp://www.christianityboard.com/eze-17-tr...147.html?t=6147

 

[tim_from_pa]

Hey Kriss:Great site! And they have Judah's Sceptre/Joseph's Birthright in pdf! That's the upgraded and accepted format of any online book. Thanks! And here I thought I had a thing going with it in only zipped HTML format.

 

[HammerStone]

I call people racist only when they are racists. I have never encountered any die-hard advocate of Anglo-Israelism that was not a racist. Your board is no exception. And seeing as how you are content to give racists free reign on your board, I won’t waste any more of my time with it and you may go to Hell.
Just wanted to share the private correspondence of our friend above, so that folks know who we are dealing with. This was a reply after I told him to basically quit calling the kettle black and complaining that someone insinuates he is a fool after he calls everyone a racist.Anyway.

 

[Christina]

Well that pretty much says it all, opinions without any facts How can saying we are part of the ten lost tribes of Israel be racist ?? against whom are we being racist against??

 

[Jordan]

(kriss;56176)
Well that pretty much says it all, opinions without any facts How can saying we are part of the ten lost tribes of Israel be racist ?? against whom are we being racist against??
You know Kriss, sadly, people have been calling us names when we preach the Truth. And other sayings like Watt saying "95% of people on this site do have the Holy Spirit." is a bit ridiculous.I just hate it when people who knows not Truth and then attack us personally becomes immature.

 

[tomwebster]

(Denver;56174)
Just wanted to share the private correspondence of our friend above, so that folks know who we are dealing with. This was a reply after I told him to basically quit calling the kettle black and complaining that someone insinuates he is a fool after he calls everyone a racist.Anyway.
I just call 'em like I see 'em!

 

[tim_from_pa]

I must be psychic.

Everyone I put on my ignore list eventually gets booted. One has to watch how they judge others. It reminds me of my job. When I started there 3 years ago, one of the engineers said he does not like to micromanage people. I thought to myself, Oh boy! Here's someone who's going to meddle into everything everyone else does and tell them what to do! I was right.Psychologically, it's called "projection" when one accuses others what they are themselves.

 

[archierieus]

The concept just doesn't appear to square with either the Scriptural account or with history. As for Scripture . . . if I recall correctly, we read that what was left of the Northern Kingdom was taken captive by Assyria and resettled, sold as slaves, etc. The Northern Kingdom ceased to exist and the survivors were dispersed. They ceased to be a coherent people group. Over time, they were absorbed into the nations where they were taken, through intermarriage, etc. There is no Biblical record of the Northen Kingdom being restored to Palestine. The kingdom of Judah, however, was restored to Palestine, where they remained for some hundreds of years until the Romans conquered Jerusalem, at which point they were scattered, the 'diaspora.' They apparently in many cases retained their cultural identity, at least until recent decades. I understand that American Jewry is in the process of being assimilated, and that practitioners of the ancient faith are becoming fewer.As for history . . . We do know the origin of the Angles and Saxons who invaded Britain. And they were coherent people groups. They were not Jews. We also know the identity and origin of the Normans, from Scandinavia. The same is true for the peoples of Europe. The notion of Anglo-Israelism appears to fly in the face of history, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.Doctrinally, Anglo-Israelism appears to be founded on a mis-application of Scripture--that is, the failure to recognize the transition, clearly taught by Paul and alluded to by Peter, from literal Israel to spiritual Israel. Paul does, of course, mention in Romans that those among the Israelites who do accept the Messiah will be grafted back into the parent stock, along with the Gentiles. They will thus become part of spiritual Israel, the true people of God.Literal Israel in the OT was an object lesson, a type of the true Israel of God. Today, we are living under the New Covenant, the Antitypes. Antitypical Israel consists of believers in Jesus 'from every kindred, tongue, people and nation.' Dave

 

[Christina]

(archierieus;56518)
The concept just doesn't appear to square with either the Scriptural account or with history. As for Scripture . . . if I recall correctly, we read that what was left of the Northern Kingdom was taken captive by Assyria and resettled, sold as slaves, etc. The Northern Kingdom ceased to exist and the survivors were dispersed. They ceased to be a coherent people group. Over time, they were absorbed into the nations where they were taken, through intermarriage, etc. There is no Biblical record of the Northen Kingdom being restored to Palestine. The kingdom of Judah, however, was restored to Palestine, where they remained for some hundreds of years until the Romans conquered Jerusalem, at which point they were scattered, the 'diaspora.' They apparently in many cases retained their cultural identity, at least until recent decades. I understand that American Jewry is in the process of being assimilated, and that practitioners of the ancient faith are becoming fewer.As for history . . . We do know the origin of the Angles and Saxons who invaded Britain. And they were coherent people groups. They were not Jews. We also know the identity and origin of the Normans, from Scandinavia. The same is true for the peoples of Europe. The notion of Anglo-Israelism appears to fly in the face of history, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.Doctrinally, Anglo-Israelism appears to be founded on a mis-application of Scripture--that is, the failure to recognize the transition, clearly taught by Paul and alluded to by Peter, from literal Israel to spiritual Israel. Paul does, of course, mention in Romans that those among the Israelites who do accept the Messiah will be grafted back into the parent stock, along with the Gentiles. They will thus become part of spiritual Israel, the true people of God.Literal Israel in the OT was an object lesson, a type of the true Israel of God. Today, we are living under the New Covenant, the Antitypes. Antitypical Israel consists of believers in Jesus 'from every kindred, tongue, people and nation.' Dave
Sorry. I am hard pushed to find a single factual point in your post.

 

[archierieus]

(kriss;56541)
Sorry. I am hard pushed to find a single factual point in your post.
???? Not sure what you are referring to. The referenced post contains the following statements of fact:1) what was left of the Northern Kingdom was taken captive by Assyria and resettled, sold as slaves, etc. The Northern Kingdom ceased to exist and the survivors were dispersed. They ceased to be a coherent people group. Over time, they were absorbed into the nations where they were taken, through intermarriage, etc. 2) There is no Biblical record of the Northen Kingdom being restored to Palestine. The kingdom of Judah, however, was restored to Palestine, where they remained for some hundreds of years until the Romans conquered Jerusalem, at which point they were scattered, the 'diaspora.' They apparently in many cases retained their cultural identity, at least until recent decades. 3) We do know the origin of the Angles and Saxons who invaded Britain. And they were coherent people groups. They were not Jews. 4) We also know the identity and origin of the Normans, from Scandinavia. The same is true for the peoples of Europe. 5) the transition, clearly taught by Paul and alluded to by Peter, from literal Israel to spiritual Israel. Paul does, of course, mention in Romans that those among the Israelites who do accept the Messiah will be grafted back into the parent stock, along with the Gentiles. They will thus become part of spiritual Israel, the true people of God.6) Literal Israel in the OT was an object lesson, a type of the true Israel of God. Today, we are living under the New Covenant, the Antitypes. Antitypical Israel consists of believers in Jesus 'from every kindred, tongue, people and nation.' All of these are statements of fact. I have not taken the time here, to post citations of authority. If you like, I can do so. Just let me know. If you content they are not statements of facts, then on what basis do you say so?What are NOT statements of fact are surmises such as the Belgians or perhaps the Swiss being of a certain Jewish tribe because they are known for 'delicacies,' and other such notions. That very definitely is NOT a statement of fact. One might call it conjecture, however, it is in violation of recorded history, hence not properly conjecture.Dave

 

[tim_from_pa]

Dave:Again, it depends on who you listen to. Those who believe in lost tribes teaching believe there is a lot of historical evidence where they are known by: Khumri, Cimmerians, Sakkas, Sacasene, Sacasune, Schythians, Cimbri, Thraco-Cimmerians, Celt, Galatians, Germans, Saxons, Normans, Danes, Gimira, Kimmeroii, Iskuza, Gauls, Angles, Picts, Iberes, Scots, Basques, Bretons, Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Burgundians, Ostrogoths, Daci, Belgae, Massagetae. etc etc etc.These people with these funny names appeared the same time and place in history as where the disappearing Israelites were taken. Then, from there it's a matter of historical tracing to the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and kindred peoples.There is one other serious flaw with your presentation that unbelievers in the lost tribes fail miserably to address: the likes of Genesis 35:11, and Genesis 48:19. Also, in II Samuel 7 Israel is provided "a place" along with the Davidic covenant.I get weary of these critical promises that the bible is based off of getting swept under the rug and making God into an impotent provider that waters things down to "spiritual riches" whatever that's supposed to mean.You have two types of election in the bible: the elect of grace, and the elect of race. The former was always a subgroup of the latter---- and the latter are not necessarily saved (and will go to hell) but are nevertheless inheritors of the promises for the father's sakes. Problem is that there is two sides of the coin and people only see the side facing up on the floor and them assume that tells the WHOLE story.The purpose of this subject is contained in this thread. If anyone misses this point, then they missed the whole bible really: im-hungry-sell-me-your-birthright

 

[archierieus]

(tim_from_pa;56585)
Dave:Again, it depends on who you listen to.
Sounds fairly subjective. One issue is accuracy and objectivity. Credible peer review can be very helpful in achieving that. As for your recitation of ancient people groups, I do wish to point out that a number of those appeared on the scene quite late--in one case as late as the 10th c. A.D. (the Normans, who came from Scandinavia) But all of that seems to beg the real issue, which is that God foretold exactly what would happen to Israel. 2 Kings records very briefly how the tribes in the Northern Kingdom were carried off into exile by Assyria. Note that they were carried off into EXILE. They were defeated and in many cases enslaved. In the closing chapters of Deuteronomy, God very graphically describes what would happen to them.So much for the Northern Kingdom. As for the several people groups you list, there really is quite a body of archaeological and other evidence about many of them. The Cimmerians, for example, lived in the steppes of Russia, which took their name, the 'Crimea.' Archaeological evidence of their habitat in that region pre-dates the captivity of the Northern Kingdom. I will not expend time and effort now to provide documentation in regard to all of them, but perhaps that would be worthwhile as an exercise.At any rate, the 'lost tribes teaching' fails to pass muster on two counts: first, what God said would happen to the Northern Kingdom and, two, what archaeological and credible historical evidence reveal about the origin of the various people groups. The OT references you cited are absolutely not on point in regard to the fate of the Northern Kingdom if it were to prove unfaithful. KIM that God's promises to Israel were conditional.
Problem is that there is two sides of the coin and people only see the side facing up on the floor and them assume that tells the WHOLE story.
Could that be said of proponents of the 'lost tribes teaching'?
If anyone misses this point, then they missed the whole bible really:
A very strong statement. Or, is it possible that advocates of a pet theory somehow find that everything seems to 'fit into' their theory, when seen through THEIR eyes?Dave

 

[tim_from_pa]

The OT references you cited are absolutely not on point in regard to the fate of the Northern Kingdom if it were to prove unfaithful. KIM that God's promises to Israel were conditional.
Right.... like I said, sweep it under the rug. Yes, God did say they'd be punished, which I do not deny, but then he also said he'd restore them. Seems you overlook that part. The promises were not conditional and are not the Old Covenant in any way. God said to Abraham "By myself I have sworn". This was the whole point about Romans 9-11 where Paul said the promises belong to Israel. Even in Romans 4 Paul makes it very clear the the basis of the promises were by faith, not by the law when he clearly stated:For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.In other words, Paul was clearly and indisputably saying that those following the Law was NOT the basis for the promises, otherwise, they'd lose the promises just like you stated. However, Paul was saying that the LAW was NOT the basis (thank God).Now, if you believe these promises were conditional, then you have no Messiah, either. Because if all Israel violated these laws, then God has no obligation or interest in providing a Messiah. If on the other hand God is obligated to provide a messiah, then on what basis if the promises were lost due to disobedience? One hasn't a ghost of a chance.However, all these facts probably will not convince you ---- the skeptical mind only sees what is preconceived.

 

[tomwebster]

We have documented the wonderings of the "Lost Tribes" over and over again on this board. Many choose not to read the documents, so be it. God did not lose the tribes of Israel, they lost themselves. Their wonderings can be seen from before the Exodus from Egypt. The largest portion of Judah did not return from the Babylonian captivity. These forgot their identity also, but then God said this would happen. He also told those that remained in Jerusalem, retaining their name, did so to their hurt. And the Jews have been hurt to this day, because they failed to heed God's warning. (Jer. 23, 24, 25) Some of the members of the tribes are now opening their eyes, they are being sealed (Rev 7). You might not be one of them. Those of you that would like to study this topic more contact me by PM.

 

[archierieus]

(tim_from_pa;56661)
Right.... like I said, sweep it under the rug.
'Sweep it under the rug?' That sounds dismissive.
Yes, God did say they'd be punished, which I do not deny, but then he also said he'd restore them. Seems you overlook that part.
Not in the slightest. The promise of restoration was made, and a remnant returned, and were restored. That is known as the 'Restoration.' They were given a second chance, for 70 x 7 years, that is, 490 years (Dan. 9) At the end of that time, they rejected God and said, "We have no king but Caesar.' Jesus warned that 'your house is left unto you desolate, in words similar to those found in Dan. 9.
God said to Abraham "By myself I have sworn". This was the whole point about Romans 9-11 where Paul said the promises belong to Israel. Even in Romans 4 Paul makes it very clear the the basis of the promises were by faith, not by the law when he clearly stated:For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Who does Paul say in Romans are the true Israelites, the true inheritors of the promises to Abraham?
Now, if you believe these promises were conditional, then you have no Messiah, either. Because if all Israel violated these laws, then God has no obligation or interest in providing a Messiah. If on the other hand God is obligated to provide a messiah, then on what basis if the promises were lost due to disobedience?
Doesn't follow. The Messiah came, lived and gave his life for everyone in the world, regardless of the unfaiithfulness of "His own, who received Him not.' Christ reached out first to Israel, and 'confirmed the covenant' made with Israel at Mt. Sinai. But His mission was not restricted to 'Israel according to the flesh.'
However, all these facts probably will not convince you ---- the skeptical mind only sees what is preconceived.
It is good to assume the best about a fellow believer, and to avoid ad hominem attacks. Good to stick to the issues.

 

[archierieus]

(tomwebster;56662)
We have documented the wonderings of the "Lost Tribes" over and over again on this board.
'Documented?' To what level of credibility?
Some of the members of the tribes are now opening their eyes, they are being sealed (Rev 7). You might not be one of them.
To my knowledge, I do not have Jewish background in my heritage. However, I belong to the true Israel, the Israel of God, the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham, which is different from 'Israel according to the flesh.'Dave

 

[tomwebster]

archierieus,You will have to go back and read the information we have posted in the many posts on this subject. I'm not going to re-write it for you. Remember that Judah is only one of the tribes and most of the people that call themselves Jews are not of the tribe of Judah.