Anglo-Israelism, odds and ends

[archierieus]

(tomwebster;56691)
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.
Would you say that the following approach is representative?"Critics claim that we twist scripture to fit a certain nationality in order to support a preconceived notion. However, I always claimed that we went by BIBLICAL descriptions and then found the people that fit."Do you see any potential issues of accuracy with this approach?The following appears to be an application of this methodology:"Let’s now examine the identity and condition of three of these tribes, represented by the following countries: Reuben (France), Zebulun (the Netherlands) and Asher (a significant part of Belgium) . . . This “excellency of dignity and power” is clearly evident in Paris. Each building, each palace and street, revealed an excellency of dignity and power found nowhere else . . . Another nation, the Netherlands, has also fulfilled descriptions foretold thousands of years ago. Israel stated, “Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for an haven of ships” (Gen. 49:13) . . . Driving through this area—which was entirely underwater just a hundred years ago—seeing developed forests, cities and roads, caused one to consider that these peoples truly had settled in a “haven of the sea.” . . . Belgian chocolates: “Out of Asher his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties” (Gen. 46:20) . . . While traveling from France to the Netherlands, my wife and I briefly stopped in Brussels, Belgium. Again, a group of peoples within this nation can be identified as descended from Asher, of which Israel stated, “Out of Asher his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties” (Gen. 49:20) . . . Belgium is world-renowned for its chocolate (as well as its waffles). Along the streets of Brussels scores of shops offer these high quality chocolate “royal dainties”—visited by countless patrons from nearly all parts of the earth. While this description of Asher is brief, it should be no coincidence to those who believe the Bible that even such a small description specifically matches this modern nation—millennia after the description was originally given. Consider: What other nation is so internationally celebrated for such “royal dainties”?Please tell me: Do you recognize any potential problems of accuracy in such an approach? Do you see any flaws in methodology?Dave

 

[tim_from_pa]

'Sweep it under the rug?' That sounds dismissive.
Yes indeed. It does. Can you explain to us why you're dismissing promises of God who promised Abraham that he'd be a father of many nations and then isn't?
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.
This is the remnant of Judah--- I'm talking about Israel because the tribe of Joseph (within the lost tribes) had the birthright promises---- not the Jew. The Jew was never prophecied to become many nations. That's indisputable and biblically accurate.
Who does Paul say in Romans are the true Israelites, the true inheritors of the promises to Abraham?
The Israelites "to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."Right there in black and white. Smacks one in the face. Of course when I am talking about "promises", I am talking about the birthright promises--- these go to a people of race. I trust you are on the same page. Now the seed of grace is another story---- the second type of chosen people.
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.'
Yes it does follow. The promises to the race were because of the faith of the fathers, and they were unconditional. If they were conditional, then Christ would not have come, and there is no basis to expect salvation to the Gentiles because to which Gentile people has God promised a Messiah? It was only promised to the people of the race---- the fact that he came because of their disobedience shows in a pragmatic sense that they were unconditional (although God says they are unconditional as well). So the fact that you admit that He came in spite of their unfaithfulness demonstrates that the other aspects of the promises must be true as well since they are part of the same package---- and what were they? I hope you read my earlier link to another thread, not the least of which were to become MANY nations, many Kings, a blessing to the world and so on and so forth.
It is good to assume the best about a fellow believer, and to avoid ad hominem attacks. Good to stick to the issues.
Then believe the promises, that God would use a people to become many nations to be a blessing to the world. From these same people came Christ---- that promise was unconditional, and therefore all the rest of the promises are as well. I really don't see why you cannot come to terms with what God clearly said.Do you believe in the resurrection? I hope so---- that's the basis of the Christian faith. Actually, it takes FAR LESS faith to believe that God stayed faithful to His word by watching over Israel instead of being like others that say Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen [notice they are not one], he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 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;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. Now, if this is too much to believe that God watches over his own to become many nations, then I sincerely doubt one truly believes in the resurrection. The latter takes far more faith.Based on biblical descriptions of Ephraim, the birthright tribe, one can safely conclude that Britain fulfilled these promises, and that is confirmed by looking at the archaeological evidence of their migrations as well. Manasseh was prophesied to break from Britain and that describes the birthright tribe as well.I can go into the math of the stuff, and show how pyramid measure, the sacred cubit of the Hebrews, and th English measure are all similar. This is one of tons of evidence regarding these people.

 

[archierieus]

I have been quite busy and caught up with other things, but will get back to this thread. To do justice to the subject will, I'm afraid, take a good bit of time, and I do look forward to making an attempt. Accuracy in handling the Word is of paramount importance to this student, and the exercise can be informative.Dave

 

[tim_from_pa]

(archierieus;57497)
I have been quite busy and caught up with other things, but will get back to this thread. To do justice to the subject will, I'm afraid, take a good bit of time, and I do look forward to making an attempt. Accuracy in handling the Word is of paramount importance to this student, and the exercise can be informative.Dave
That's good and noble. However, before disproving where the lost tribes went, just make sure you have something adequate in its place. God's integrity is at stake here. It's not enough to just merely say, "Britian is not Ephraim. That's ridiculous and here's archaeological evidence against it." The problem with that point is then one has to ask "Who then did they become?" in its place. It's not enough to debunk something---- something has to be offered in exchange, something that debunkers have failed miserably at doing. In other words, pick another nation, either historically or at present and state why.I'm all ears if somebody has a better nation(s) that fit the lost tribe characteristics, but thus far nobody else has found any, both now nor historically.

 

[Christina]

Amen Tim Anyone can be a nay sayer but amazing how they have no other answers or answers that fly on the face of Gods Words. Then make the person that shows them the answer the bad guy:)

 

[archierieus]

(tim_from_pa;57581)
God's integrity is at stake here. It's not enough to just merely say, "Britian is not Ephraim. That's ridiculous and here's archaeological evidence against it." The problem with that point is then one has to ask "Who then did they become?" in its place.
Or perhaps the problem is on a deeper level--a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Scripture. As I have read the Scriptural position statements on this and simiilar threads here, in support of the notion of lost tribe-European identity, I have noticed what appears to be a very serious misapprehension of Scripture. I will get to that, although not tonight. There appear to be several fallacies in the line of argument which, in fact, are either unsupported or directly contradicted by Scripture.Dave

 

[tim_from_pa]

Or perhaps the problem is on a deeper level--a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Scripture. As I have read the Scriptural position statements on this and simiilar threads here, in support of the notion of lost tribe-European identity, I have noticed what appears to be a very serious misapprehension of Scripture. I will get to that, although not tonight. There appear to be several fallacies in the line of argument which, in fact, are either unsupported or directly contradicted by Scripture.
OK--- then let's start with Genesis 35:11. It's not allegory nor parable nor obscure prophetic utterance:And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; So, what's there to misunderstand? Would God say this when he meant scattered people existing in the unknown remotest parts of the earth?And it does not stop there of course. There are scores and scores of other such passages.I see a tendency to mold scripture into what appears to be the visual circumstances instead of taking God at His word.

 

[archierieus]

(tim_from_pa;57693)
And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; So, what's there to misunderstand? [Would God say this when he meant scattered people existing in the unknown remotest parts of the earth?
Your question underscores some fatal defects in your methodology, if 'doing science'--that is, empirical accuracy is a goal.
I see a tendency to mold scripture into what appears to be the visual circumstances instead of taking God at His word.
Look in a mirror. You have well stated what you, from your statements, appear to be doing.Getting back to the Bible verse you quoted above . . .What is the Biblical history of Abraham's descendants? What do the words, 'nation' and 'company of nations' mean as stated in the Hebrew? What nation and what company of nations are recorded in Scripture as being descended from Abraham? What does the Bible say about the continuation of (a) the 'nation' and (

the 'company of nations' which are recorded in Scripture as being descended from Abraham?Dave

 

[tim_from_pa]

Your question underscores some fatal defects in your methodology, if 'doing science'--that is, empirical accuracy is a goal.
I don't understand Swedish. Sorry. I'm just taking God at His word and not over-analyzing something to say it must mean something else. God said a company of nations and it must mean that. I'm not into song and dancing around something.
What is the Biblical history of Abraham's descendants? What do the words, 'nation' and 'company of nations' mean as stated in the Hebrew?
The bible says what the history is and what will happen to them. As to the meaning of the word "nation" and "company of nations" in Hebrew, it means a nation and a company (i.e. multitude) of nations the same as in English. Now let's stop stalling for time and answer the questions instead of looking for an escape hatch trying to make it mean something else.

 

[tim_from_pa]

While we are waiting for some to gather more ammunition, I think the whole issue of this lost tribes doctrine is the failure for the critics to understand the significance of the subject. Israel represents a type of grace, whereas Judah still practices Law. Yet, the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are grace-based as the principles of the New Testament actually antedates the Law of moses. As Paul taught, the Law was the schoolmaster to bring one to Christ.The promises to Abraham and his seed shows a grace type fulfillment as they would be a blessing to many nations. And how is that accomplished? Via the gospel of course. God would not make these promises to Abraham's seed only to entrust the promises to non-Israelite Gentiles. If that was the case, any knowledgeable person of the covenants would clearly and in an unbiased manner see that God then did not keep His promises to Abraham's seed.Of course you have those who say that the "Jew" messed up and that the promises are no longer in effect (like the Old Covenant) but apply to those of faith (like the church). The only covenant not in effect is the Mosaic covenant. This was based in Law and replaced by grace, ie. that is to say until faith was revealed. However, the other covenants like the Abrahamic, Davidic and so forth are not technically "Old Testament" done away with like the Mosaic covenant. This is because these covenants were unconditional and based on grace like the New Covenant and ironically were put in place to carry out God's plan of grace to the world. Logically grace does not nullify grace needless to say. And again, if these covenants were done away with or even redefined, then the present grace taught today is of no effect. That is easily enough proven by what Paul said and by understanding the nature of the covenants.Lastly, if what I say is true about the lost tribes, and I have not reason to doubt them, then we are Abraham's seed here in the United States as well as as such God promised our protection. I'm not saying this as a license to sin and then expect divine protection, but in fact God would watch over His people Israel. Disobedience to the Law only resulted in punishment for a season, but NEVER a reason to take away the promises and there is not a stitch of scripture that says that, either.Hence, if people here would turn to God and trust in His already provided protection, there would be no need to fear the likes of a terrorist.Or..... we can believe the critics instead and believe that this nation is "just any gentile nation" that occurred "out of the blue". In that case, you might as well fear since God does not promise any protection. Might as well join the likes of Bin Laden if one wants to believe this. As for me, I love God and country.

 

[tim_from_pa]

Kriss, Tom or Denver:Maybe it's time we close this thread, but I'll let it up to you.The originator of this thread was banned, and other critics of British-Israel teaching seem to have fell by the wayside.This is not a battle with me as to who "wins". I realize that I will never change the minds of the critics as they will not change mine. The whole issue here was regarding the integrity of God's word.I think I have adequately expressed here, as I did myriads of other times on this forum as well as others and in my personal life that the "naysayers" love to debunk the doctrine, but in fact they have no alternate interpretation as to what the biblical passages then mean. It's as if they truncate that part of their bibles. And needless to say, they fail to understand the critical importance of these passages as being the foundational covenants of the whole bible (see my previous post). In other words, there's more to the lost tribes doctrine than "where they went". There's a profound story behind it that some just do not get---- and again, that mystery is the basis for the bible. Misunderstand this, and one misunderstands the whole bible and creates a Jesus of their imagination.