Posted on 03/28/2002 8:52:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
BPAAAAAAAPPP!!! Wrong. Read the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my Profile and try again. {ggg}.
My sentiments exactly. Let us instead ask God to bless and protect Israel during the present strife.
As to the other matter, perhaps starting a separate thread may be more appropriate.
The got off to a pretty good start with Jesus declaration:
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The Lost Tribes of Israel (aka Lost Sheep of The House of Israel) were dominant by now in Galatia and elsewhere north of the Med (known as The Celts), and being Israelites (but not Jews) were not considered to be "gentiles". They did however became the majority "gentile" Christians of which you speak, even to this day.
The semantics of the word "gentile", and who is using it to mean what, unfortunately confuses the issue. (As is the case with Israel and Israelite, the word meaning is very dependent upon context, which is related to time.)
Everyone is speculating about EVERYTHING, for all history is just HIS-STORY. Much of what we call truth and fact in the church is arrived at by deduction. Some of it good, much of it just plain awful, the result of centuries of "force-fitting" special-interest explanations to uncertain situations. Mindless repetition then becomes established "truth".
It's good to see modern archeology confirming so much of the Bible, while repudiating some really bad theories, like "official" explanations of what happened to The Lost Tribes of Israel.
> In any case, they are not "Jews" as John uses the word in his Gospel.
Agreed.
How have you determined that your theory is not merely a '"force-fit" special-interest explanation...'?
1. Do you know of any unequivocal Biblical references which whould demonstrate the validity of your theory?
2. Are you unaware of any Biblical evidence which would demonstrate the invalidity your theory?
3. Have you considered
Matthew 7:20
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
DG
>How have you determined that your theory is not merely a '"force-fit" special-interest explanation...'?
Are you seeking the truth, or just standing there at the bar with a beer in your hand and making farting noises?
>1. Do you know of any unequivocal Biblical references which whould demonstrate the validity of your theory?
Do you know of any which would refute it?
>2. Are you unaware of any Biblical evidence which would demonstrate the invalidity your theory?
Are you aware of any which would demonstrate the validity of alternate theories?
>3. Have you considered Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Yes, and here it is IN CONTEXT:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
I am attempting to refute these very false prophets who operate under cover of clergy and academia.
While I ordinarily like to discuss these matters, but I don't like your holy-joe bad-ass attitude, pal. Have you considered:
Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
Are you seeking the truth, or just standing there at the bar with a beer in your hand and making farting noises?
Actually,I was hoping to have a rational discussion of your theory.
>1. Do you know of any unequivocal Biblical references which whould demonstrate the validity of your theory?
Do you know of any which would refute it?
I think there are some which might tend to do so. Would you like to explore some of them?
>2. Are you unaware of any Biblical evidence which would demonstrate the invalidity your theory?
Are you aware of any which would demonstrate the validity of alternate theories?
Actually, I do not have any other theory. I somehow imagined that you were trying to gain adherents to your theory.
While I ordinarily like to discuss these matters, but I don't like your holy-joe bad-ass attitude, pal.
Have you considered:
Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
Well, I guess I will have to apologize for being so rude that you consider me a dog or a swine. That certainly was not my intention.
If you should wish to discuss your theory rationally, please let me know.
DG
The ball is in your court. If you can approach the subject with an open mind and an intelligent outlook, please read the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my Profile and fire away. To keep it simple, note the History is made up of 7 paragraphs. Ignore (for the moment) paragraphs 5 and 6.
Now, tell me what part of that history you have a problem with.
Actually, not. I do not have any theory which I am trying to get people to believe.
Now, tell me what part of that history you have a problem with.
Let's start here:
A hundred years later, this "lost" Northern Kingdom of Israel with now over 6 Million Israelites defeated the Assyrians and escaped north through the Caucasus Mountains and past the Black and Caspian Seas, to appear in history ~610 BC as The Celts. These Celts mixed with (and fought) other scattered Israelites (proto-Celts) who had escaped from Egypt by sea a thousand years earlier and established many outposts in Europe and elsewhere.
I do not recall where, in the Bible, this story is told. Can you give us chapter and verse?
DG
Now look DoorGunner, I have given you a very large target to shoot at. If you can't hit it, that's your problem. The rules of engagement are simple; you shoot at the target provided. If you can't hit it, then maybe a larger target will be provided later.
Now shall we try again:
The ball is in your court. If you can approach the subject with an open mind and an intelligent outlook, please read the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my Profile and fire away. To keep it simple, note the History is made up of 7 paragraphs. Ignore (for the moment) paragraphs 5 and 6.
Now, tell me what part of that history you have a problem with. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC!
It's past my bedtime here so I'll check your target for hits in the morning.
I had kind of hoped that YOU would "shoot at the target [I had]provided." Oh, well, since you have decided to set the "rules of engagement," here goes:
The story of the "Lost Tribes of Israel" is a fascinating one, yet so tangled in myth, mysticism and tradition, plus cultural and religious self-interest that for a designated time they really were believed lost to history. However, the Lost Tribes "lost time" is over, and the implications of their "return" are profound.
I propose that we discard ALL of the "...myth, mysticism and tradition, plus cultural and religious self-interest..." and look to the ONLY legitimate authority, at least for those of us who believe the Bible.
1. Is there any textual evidence, From the Bible, which indicates that "...the Lost Tribes "lost time" is over,..."?
...Abraham (a great-great grandson of Shem...
(Actually, a great, great, great, great, great, grandson of Shem.)
...Abraham...and a small group of Hebrews (of which there were & are many varieties) migrated from southern Iraq to Canaan (~Palestine).
Actually, the Bible calls Abram a "Hebrew," but the next time people are called "Hebrews" is in the story of Joseph, in Egypt. I am unaware of any Biblical reference to ANY "varieties" of "Hebrews." Do you have a reference which I have missed?
...Canaan (~Palestine).
If memory serves, Canaan was not known as "Palestine," until after 70 AD, and never, in the Bible.
... As offspring of Shem, they were called "Shemites" or "Semites"...
But, not in the Bible-this is from secular sources.
~1450 BC, now as the 12 Tribes of the 12 Sons of Israel, and over 3 Million strong, these Semites bailed out of Egypt in the well-documented EXODUS and fled back to Palestine. But the Tribes “couldn't all get along” there, so ~922 BC these 5 Million Israelites split into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.
...over 3 Million strong,
I think a more accurate number is :from twenty years old and upward, 603,550 men.
(In actual numbers, 5 Million people is about the same size as Ireland, Norway, Denmark or Israel today, and was 10% of the estimated 50 Million world population at that time.
I am unable to find any Biblical reference to either of these figures. Where did you get them?
...Known also as the Kingdom of Israel or House of Israel,...
The "Kingdom of Israel" is mentioned three times, in the Bible--twice referring to the Kingdom, BEFORE the division, and once, to the Northern kingdom, by Jezebel, to Ahab.
In the Old Testement,the phrase "House of Israel is used for both the entirety of Israel, and sometimes for the northern kingdom. In the New Testament, the "House of Israel," is only used once WITH the "House of Judah," and then they were BOTH to be given a new covenant.
Mostly, (in the New Testament) Israel clearly means the people of God, living in the Holy land, and occasionally, outside the Holy land.
...They were not good about keeping up with changes in their eMail addresses, thus were called, by some, the "Lost Tribes", or "Lost Sheep" or "Lost Children" of the Kingdom of Israel.
I am unable to find this in the Bible. Can you give the verse?
A hundred years later, this "lost" Northern Kingdom of Israel with now over 6 Million Israelites defeated the Assyrians and escaped north through the Caucasus Mountains and past the Black and Caspian Seas, to appear in history ~610 BC as The Celts. These Celts mixed with (and fought) other scattered Israelites (proto-Celts) who had escaped from Egypt by sea a thousand years earlier and established many outposts in Europe and elsewhere.
Again, I am unable to substantiate any of these "facts," in the Bible. Where did you get these?
These Millions of Celts grew over time to become Hundreds of Millions as they migrated in waves westward and northwest to Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, to what is today Hallstadt, Austria and Neuchatel, Switzerland (where exist major Celtic digs and museums) and beyond, to dominate Northern and Western Europe. They are the rootstock of today’s Europeans, and Americans.
Again, I am unable to find any of this information in the Bible. Where does it come from?
...also known as the Kingdom of Judah or House of Judah,...
The "House of Judah" is often used in the Old Testament, to signify the Southern Kingdom. It is used only once, in the New Testament (see above).
The "Kingdom of Judah" is only used once, and that is in the Old Testament, apparently signifying the Southern Kingdom.
I think the above is enough for now. Time to get some rest.
DG
>The rules of engagement are simple; you shoot at the target provided.
And the rules of defense are simple; you control the angle of the target and the distance from it. I have willingly provided you a target. You have provided nothing, and have nothing at risk.
>I had kind of hoped that YOU would "shoot at the target [I had]provided." Oh, well, since you have
decided to set the "rules of engagement," here goes:
Sorry, but you didn't provide a worthy target, let alone one of interest.
>I propose that we discard ALL of the "...myth, mysticism and tradition, plus cultural and
religious self-interest..." and look to the ONLY legitimate authority, at least for those of us who
believe the Bible.
My Profile clearly states:
This site is about HISTORY, both Archeological and Biblical.
If you insist on modifying the premises behind my site and excluding Archeological evidence of HISTORIC historic events, then this discussion of HISTORY is unfortunately over. I do believe the Bible, but do not agree it is the SOLE reference for ALL HISTORIC truth, and will not agree to that restriction on our discussion.
Please advise before I spend any more time responding to the balance of your questions.
-LT
>The rules of engagement are simple; you shoot at the target provided.
then
Now, tell me what part of that history you have a problem with. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC!
Now:
And the rules of defense are simple; you control the angle of the target and the distance from it. I have willingly provided you a target. You have provided nothing, and have nothing at risk.
Well, now... It seems to me that, every time I post an explicit question (or a dozen) expressing my opinion that your theory is not Biblically sound, that, rather than making any defense, you make a new "rule."
Sorry, but you didn't provide a worthy target, let alone one of interest.
Are you saying that the Bible--the ONLY direct, reliable, objective STANDARD for truth about theology, is not a "worthy target?" Is it not "of interest," to you, or your theory?
This site is about HISTORY, both Archeological and Biblical.
If your theory is ONLY supported by SECULAR history and archeology, I feel that it would be more honest to present it that way, rather than making inaccurate allusions to the Biblical record.
If you insist on modifying the premises behind my site and excluding Archeological evidence of HISTORIC historic events, then this discussion of HISTORY is unfortunately over.
Your premise SEEMS to be that your theory is proved by BOTH the Biblical record, and the secular historical record. Secular history is rife with inaccuracy, lies, and rank speculation disguised as facts.
I say, that when secular history and the Biblical record disagree, that I will choose the Bible. I think that a theory such as yours, with so much potential for disaster, should meet the test of Biblical congruence, and only then, should we look at secular history.
It seems to me that you hold that secular history trumps the Bible. I am hoping that this is not so. Please let me know if I am mistaken.
DG
But since you will not accept my site for what it says it is, and you insist on putting a spin on it, I will just say goodbye. My site and the clear premesis behind it will not change to suit your narrow and argumentative agenda. My Profile is there for you to read; take it or leave it.
-Goodbye, and Good Luck.
Well, I am sitting here, in REAL space, and Pacific Standard time. I assume that your "site" is a series of 1s and 0s, residing on a hard disk, owned by FreeRepublic. It will exist there, until someone erases it.
As to "high level intellectual discussion," I don't think I am up to that standard. I would like to explore whether your theory has any basis in Scripture.
"...since you will not accept my site for what it says it is, and you insist on putting a spin on it,..."
Nothing I write can change your site, in any way; neither can I put any "spin on it."
...My site and the clear premesis behind it will not change to suit your narrow and argumentative agenda.
Again, I cannot "change" your site, in any way. Furthermore, the only "agenda" I have is to find out whether your theory has ANY Biblical basis. It is unfortunate that you feel that such an agenda is "narrow and argumentative."
My Profile is there for you to read; take it or leave it.
Unfortunately, you have not left it at that. It seems to me that you have been actively trying to proselytize Bible-believers on FreeRepublic to your theory. Yet, you seem unwilling to defend your theory from a Biblical point of view.
If this theory were merely another secular idea, I would not be wasting my time on it. It is clear, however, that it has had some extremely serious evil consequences.
This site...is NOT about Christian or Jewish Identity, British Israelism, White Power or anti-Semitism, ...
But, it IS. The church site you have recommended, for further study, is explicitly a British-Israel church.
The "research site" you link to is that of Gene Scott, who is explicitly British-Israel.
Furthermore, (although I am sure that neither you, nor the people at the above sites have anything to do with "Christian Identity") it is an inescapable fact that the Identity movement, which lends an (utterly false) "christian" basis for both white power and the most virulent of anti-semitism, is a direct descendent of the British-Israel concept.
The tree which produced the above vile fruit must be examined carefully, before any Christian partakes of ANY of its fruit..
DG
Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.