Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church

Already explained that. What, tired of me already?

Tired of you saying you have explained something when you haven't.

Rhetoric is not an explanation.

[You stated two rounds of posts ago that they were going to be your last posts to me-it seems that integrity is not one of your virtues.]

I stated, "This is your last post in this series." It was the last post in the series of posts you made to me in that round, so I wanted to ask you that question. Are you so desperate for ammunition that you hunt nits to discredit me?

And how long do you think a series of posts are to gone on?

Why make a comment that you are finished with the posts of 'that series' as if this is going to go on and on which is ridiculous.

As for ammunition to use against you, your own posts do that.

They are full of non supportable conjecture and go against actually history and Biblical facts.

[ Start with Matthew 24 (still to happen) and then go to Zech 13:9 where only a 1/3 of the Jews/Israelites survive. ]

Zech 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. I believe the house of David would be Judah, which during Christ, inhabited Jerusalem. I don't know the time period, but it would seem to be after the northern kingdom had been captured by the Assyrians.

The chapter is Zech 13 are dealing with future events.

Vs.9 hasn't happened yet.

The same is true of Chapter 12 which states the Jew will see Christ return to Mt. Olives (vs.10)

It appears that 1/3 of the Jews survive. The best I can make out. How you come to your conclusion is a mystery.

How, I come to my conclusion is reading what the scriptures say and not pick my way through them to find verses to match what I 'want to believe'

You just go through Scripture ignoring ones that tell you of future events, such as Matthew 24.

But, so what? God promised that Israel, all of it, would bless the nations and cover the Earth. That has to happen before the Millennium if, as you think, 2/3 of Israel (all of it) would be wiped out.

Nothing has to happen.

It won't take much time to repopulate the earth when all sickness is removed, and there is a perfect, peaceful environment to live in.

Within a couple of centuries, the 12 tribes would be in the millions, as would all of mankind.

Who's blessing the nations of the Earth, for instance, now?

God is blessing the nations of the Earth and He is using those Gentile nations that bless Israel to do so (Gen.12).

Those nations are not Israelites.

[ No one is flailing around with anything. The nations you speak of will be regarded the 'sheep' nations in Matthew 25 and are not Israelites or Jews. They are Gentiles. Now, since you haven't provided a single fact in any post, it is time for you either to provide one or move on to some people who will accept your nonsense. The issue isn't what is acceptable or not the issue is what does the Bible actually say. Stop making up history to fit your theology. ]

You keep saying these things. I have the weight of presumption on the side of the lost children of Israel, having forgotten their heritage, which you confirm, populating the Earth in great numbers.

You have nothing on your side but hot air.

No one has 'forgotten their heritage', they have lost their genealogical records so, they do not know which particular tribes they belong to, but they know they are of the lineage of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and are not Gentiles.

[ You've show me nothing that would indicate that Hosea and Ezekiel would take place during the Millennium. ]

Well, that is because you don't want to look.

Clearly, you have no intention of allowing Scripture to change your own warped theology.

Fact is, you, or anyone else, don't know how it will woprk out, since Revelation is totally symbolic. There are dozens of viewpoint related to it, and your's is just one of them.

Well, we do know that when Revelation is compared to the prophetic books that we can see the general outline of what is going to happen.

That the Jews will undergo great tribulation after the Rapture of the Church (Jer.30:7, 1Thess.4:16), that an Anti-Christ will arise that will come to power in peace, but will soon wage war against Israel (Dan.11, Rev.13) and that He will be destroyed by the return of Christ (Dan. 2, Rev.19) and the Millennial reign will begin (Isa.65, Ezek 40-48, Rev.20).

After a 1,000 years, Satan will be released for a short time and another revolt will break out which God the Father will put down.

And then there will be a recreation of the Heavens and Earth (2Pe.3, Rev.21-22)

Now, that is the general outline of future history, and it is clear when one compares scripture with scripture and reads what the scripture says and not what he wants it to say.

[ The issue isn't what is acceptable or not the issue is what does the Bible actually say. ]

You have shown me in support of your theory passages that have more than one reasonable interpretation and passages that don't fit. Whereas you have prophecy, especially when viewed according to God promises to the Israelites, that directly contradicts and makes impossible what you say happened and will happen.

You have not been able to refute a single scripture that I have given you.

You simply reject them because they do not line up with your nonsense theology.

Those scripture are future and deal with the reuniting of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah under the King of the Jews, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, in order for your objections to be valid, you would have to actually supply an alternative view on those scriptures that would make sense based on how they read.

You haven't, because you can't.

Tell me, would you think that the children of Israel composing the great nations would be a good thing? If not, why not?

The children of Israel do not compose the great nations, so my opinion on it is irrelevant.

Would the fact that the children of Israel do not compose the great Gentile nations bother you?

So stop bringing up issues that have nothing to do with what actually exists not something that exists only in your theological fantasies.

[Read them it will be good for you. It is all there, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the inheritance of the 12 tribes, the return to Jewish customs, the perfect environment which will allow a rapid re population (see also Isa.65) All of which is speaking of what Hosea is talking about in Hos.1:10-11-a reunited Kingdom under the Jewish King of Kings-the Lord Jesus Christ.]

Actually, no, point out the passages that tell you that the Judah and Israel will reunite at the Millennium. Hosea doesn't say the King of Kings, just "appoint themselves one head". All this is your idea, which does seem to fit the Biblical facts.

On the contrary, it is in Ezekial we see the 12 tribes getting their land inheritance (Ezek.48) which lines up with exactly what Hosea says in Chapter 14.

[Peter says that ye crucified the Messiah.]

And who was he talking to at the time, the House of Israel, which was not there, or Judah, which was and did the act?

He was talking to the House of Israel-which was there.

Read the passage, it is very clear, he is addressing the House of Israel.

Oh, I agree that Israel was present and in Europe, all over Europe matter of fact, but not in Palestine and not part of Judah. The circumstances and results surrounding what Hosea predicted is not present.

Well, you are wrong and the passage shows that very clearly.

Peter is speaking to the House of Israel,which are present in the crowd, as well as the House of Judah.

Rejecting the clear English is a sign that you cannot deal with the truth.

[ Oh, the Jews were in Britain and Europe, but were known as Jews. They weren't there as some 'lost wandering tribes' ]

The Israelites were occupying Britain and Europe as well, but, as you pointed out, God and removed from them the knowledge of their inheritance. How could this be if they knew enough to merge with Judah.

The Israelites were not 'occupying' anyone, they were in judgment and were dispersed throughout the Gentile lands as part of the curse of Lev.26, and Deut.28.

[ And still, numbers defeat your theory]

Are you dense? Peter was face to face with the Jews. When he say "ye", he is talking to the Jews. He mentions Israel, which, of course, is up in Europe, which you acknowledge.

The only one 'dense' around here is someone who cannot read simple English.

Peter is speaking to the House of Israel, that is who the 'ye' is directed to.

It is clear in the English and in the Greek.

So stop talking utter nonsense.

The Jews were scattered throughout Europe as part of the dispersion, but they did not lose their memory and forget who they were.

You sound like Louis Farakan!

You can parse any passage into another meaning altogether. Catholics do it all the time.

Catholics have to deal with the reality of what a verse says.

When they cannot, they run to the Church Fathers to get around what it actually does say with one of their traditions.

Now, the verse is clear and your rejection of what it says, shows your own determination to reject scripture for your own opinions, no different than any Roman Catholic.

And this is altogether not to mention the fact that if Israel had merged with Judah it contradicts God's promises, Hosea's and Ezekiel's prophecies in at least two ways, translated records from the Assyrians, commonsense, and lastly but not leastly, what you have said yourself.

You really are quite dense aren't you?

I said that they have mixed as a people but not as Kingdom.

Can you grasp the difference?

So, nothing is being contradicted in scripture.

I'm still waiting for evidence you have to overcome the presumption that Israel escaped from Assyria and populated Europe.

I don't have to provide evidence for something that didn't happen.

No historian says that it did.

That is a myth of your own making and the onus is on you to prove that it happened.

The more likely view, held by historians is that those Israelites who did not blend with the Jews as Jews, assimilated with their surrounding races.

So, you have to show that some mass exodus happened and that the 10 tribes went to Europe and became the nations we know today as England and America.

Fantasy 101.

[ Oh, the Jews were in Britain and Europe, but were known as Jews. ]

How can that be if the Israelites, by God's hand, were to forget their heritage? You've pointed that out yourself.

The Israelites didn't 'forget their heritage' and where in the Bible does it say that they would?

Those Israelites who merged with Judah didn't forget that they were Jews and are known as such.

The others disappeared from history as part of the judgment of God against them.

Scripture does record Sargon taking one little city [Isaiah 20:1] Ashdod....and this was probably the 26,000 folks spoken of.

No, the city being referred to is Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom.

Although Shalmaner's sucessor, Sargon 2, who seized the Assyrian throne on Shalmaneser's death late in 722, repeatedly boasts of having taken Samaria,the Bible is probably correct in attributing its capture to Shalmaneser. The city apparantely fell in the late summer or autumn of the year 722-721. Thousands of its citizens-27,290 according to Sargon-were subsequently deported to Uppter Mesopotamia and Media, there ultimately to vanish from the stage of history (A History of Israel, 3rd ed. John Bright, pg.275)

Don't you ever get tired to passing on misinformation?

[No, you just denied what the English and the Greek says the verse says. Peter was addressing men who he regarded as being the House of Israel.]

Why, yes I did. A child can understand what the verse plainly says. There's no indication of that whatsoever. You have to parse the hell out of the passage to even come close.

No, it is you who is doing the parsing by denying what the verse clearly says.

You have to reject the clear meaning of the verse.

Now you can deny what the verse says all you want, but take it to someone who can actually read English and he will tell you exactly who Peter is addressing in that passage-the House of Israel, as well as that of Judea (vs.14)

[ Yes, what is so mysterious about that? Clearly the 12 tribes were dispersed throughout the entire Roman Empire as witnessed by the nations represented at Pentacost (Acts 2:9-11)]

Dispersed, that is, throughout Europe. You admit this? This is exactly what the "British Israelites" say. And, again, you can't claim they merged with Judah right around Rome and in Palestine because God removed the knowledge of their heritage.

The British Israelites say that the 10 tribes went to Europe and became someone else.

The 12 tribes were dispersed throughout Europe as Jews.

Thus, James addresses them as such, 12 tribes, not 10.

Thus, we find Jews at Rome when Paul gets there.

And Jews from every nation at Pentacost visiting Jerusalem.

No one denies the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world, that was part of the curse that they were threatened with in Deut.28:64-65-all 12 tribes, not just the Southern ones.

When we are talking about Europe, we ar talking about all of what we know in the present day as Europe.

When we talk about Europe we are talking about the Jews being dispersed among the then Roman Empire that later became modern Europe.

[ There is no historical record of those tribes going anywhere is there? We know from the Bible where they went, we just do not know what happened to them. So stop repeating what you know as some great fact-it isn't. It doesn't tell us anything about what happened to them.

It presents a historical fact that contradicts the notion that they were wiped out, it places Israelites on a vector toward Europe at that time, hundreds of years before Christ.

It doesn't place the Israelites moving into Europe as tribes.

When Jews were dispersed throughout Europe were done so through the various conquests.

No separate entity as the Israelites went anywhere, the 12 tribes were dispersed throughout Europe and Asia as Jews.

And that is how James addresses them, as 12 tribes, not 10.

[ We do know that in Sargan's record he only records deporting some 26,000 of them, not a vast amount of people and easy to assimilate. ]

You never showed me the reference to the number, where the number came from, or overcame the presumption that has to be made that that was not all the Israelites.

It came from his own inscription.

I gave you the book that it was cited from.

Go to the library and look it up.

And ofcourse, it was not all the Israelites, but it was their capital city and it was down to only 27,000 people, so the numbers of the rest couldn't have been too great.

It is up to you to provide some real historical facts that support your idiotic view.

[ The historian I gave you was an Assyrian expert. ]

He obviously didn't access the translations of the Assyrian artifacts in the British museum. I think the translation were finished in th 1960's. Don't remember exactly. Did he write his book before that?

He had access to all the records, none of which contradict what he said.

The work that the number is cited is in the History of Israel, 3rd edition, John Bright, 1981.

That citation is often seen in Assyrian inscriptions, so it is clear you have no knowledge of that subject as well.

[ No, my statement is built on what the Bible says. ]

It is built on your labored interpretation of what the Bible says from a status quo point of view that you find extremely comfortable and fearful when challenged. Somehow, you seem invested in that status quo.

No, it is based on actual facts none of which you able to refute.

It is based on what the Bible actually says and not what you want it to say.

Your entire theory is nothing but a sham to deceive the ignorant or those too lazy to check out the evidence.

So far, from what I have seen from you guys, you can even read a simple English sentence correctly!

Yet, you all think you are mental giants and Bible scholars!

What you are is 'wise in your own conceits'

Are you Jewish?

That has been answered.

We've discussed James several times. For him to have written accurately, and as per your acknowledgment, the Israelites were in Europe, precisely what these "British Israelists" you hate so much claim.

Try to read this English sentence with some understanding.

No one denies that Jews were spread throughout Europe and Asia.

The Bible states that very clearly.

It was predicted that they would be.

So, your argument is simply another straw man.

The British Israelites claim that the 10 tribes went into Europe as a separate group-that is what is being denied, not that Jews were in Europe-grasp the difference, or do I need to use pictures?

[ That is to whom James is writing to, those 12 tribes of Israel (not 10) ]

The house of Judah was 2. The house of Israel was 10. The Jews were spread out in the countries as far as Rome at the time. The other 10 were spread out in all of Europe and had been for hundreds of years. There is even some evidence, not much, but some, that parts of the Israelites went to the European continent instead of with Moses out of Egypt.

Yes, James wrote to all of the 12 tribes, which were in all of Europe and they knew who they were, hence the reason that James could address them as the 12 tribes.

So, now the Israelites did not cross the Red Sea with Moses!

The divisions into the two groups did not even come about until after the division of the Kingdom after Solomon!(1Ki.12)

[ That's who He went to. He never went to any other land besides Israel. So, the lost House of Israel must have been in Israel. You prove that He left Israel! ]

But Jesus chargesHis disciples to go there. I never claimed He went there. But, then, we are missing about 18 years out of Jesus' life, aren't we. Who knows?

Well, you certainly don't that is for sure!

And Jesus said that his ministry was to the Lost House of Israel,

I am not sent but until the lost sheep of house of Israel (Mat.15:24)

So, Christ's own mission was to the House of Israel, not just sending His disciples to them.

[ No one had forgotten their heritage ]

Wasn't it you in this very conversation that pointed out clear scripture where God ordained that they were to forget who they were?

No, I never said that.

They were to be dispersed and become, an astonishment, a proverb a byword to the nations of the world (Deut.28:37).

There are no Israelites who became some other people-that is sheer myth.

Let me get this straight. I post a comment you interpret to mean I will post no more to you. Then I post another comment to you, and you fault me for it?

My friend, as long as you post to me, I will post to you on this topic. This should have been evident since I have responded to your every post.

We can continue years, if necessary. With the caveat that I will not move to another thread, so you may use that anytime to get out of the pressure, or you can do as has been done in the past with this topic: summon a bunch of contentious supporters, confuse the issue, make wild and acrimonious statements, complain to the moderator and get the thread pulled.

So disabuse yourself of fond wishes.

The chapter is Zech 13 are dealing with future events.

Yeah? Where in the future. Prove you answer in that scripture.

How, I come to my conclusion is reading what the scriptures say and not pick my way through them to find verses to match what I 'want to believe' You just go through Scripture ignoring ones that tell you of future events, such as Matthew 24.

Yes, but what future time? Show me in the passages you were citing.

The instant issue is the numbers of the Israelites. You have been trying very hard to refute the notion there is more Israelites on Earth that are not Jews.

To this end, in order to explain the clear words of Hosea and Ezekiel, you must place the reuniting far into the future to a Millennium of which neither you nor I know the specifics of, or can accurately interpret the symbolism of Revelation.

In order to do this you must have the Jews the last line of Israelites on Earth, with, I suppose the past dead Israelites being raised from the dead to join their brothers and bring blessings to all nations. You must do this because God has promised that the Israelites would cover the Earth and bless all nations, which certainly hasn't happened.

When the dead are raised, will there be nations, and how exactly, would they be blessed, once the dead are in their spiritual bodies, as Christ said? How will they choose one head? What need they even of a head in that state?

You have been forced into this silly position because you cannot abide the notion that there are other Israelites extant, now, than the Jews, and don't call themselves Jews, a simple explanation for all of it in one uncomplicated truth.

Well, neither you nor I know how many of the northern kingdom were captured, the number of men not fighting men, the number of fighting men that were killed and the number of women and children that survived to produce more northern kingdom numbers.

The only guidance we have is past cites of numbers of the Israelites. And that number has been huge, particularly for the worlds population during those times. So it must be presumed that large numbers of the Israelites survived the capture and, adding to that number over the generations on the Assyrian northern border, a very large number escape the Assyrian when Assyria fell.

Your task, to support your notion that the Jews are the only Israelites left on Earth today is to prove that those numbers were either tiny to begin with and all but disappeared during the time of Christ.

Nowhere have you come close. Like this last cite. You will have to specify exactly where in scripture it is that 1/3 of Israelites are all that is left today.

God is blessing the nations of the Earth and He is using those Gentile nations that bless Israel to do so (Gen.12).

God said that Abraham's descendants will bless all nations. There is no mention of "gentiles".

No one has 'forgotten their heritage', they have lost their genealogical records so, they do not know which particular tribes they belong to, but they know they are of the lineage of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and are not Gentiles.

You agreed in a prior post that God ordained that the Israelites would loose the memory of their heritage, in so many words. If you force me to go through all these posts to find it, I will, but you should know it.

Have you found that Jew yet and asked what tribe he belongs to. Then, when he answers, tell him he really can't know, and see what he says. To share with me when you do.

Clearly, you have no intention of allowing Scripture to change your own warped theology.

But you've cited no passages that that place the coming to pass of Hosea and Ezekiel take place in the Millennium. You don't even know what the Millennium is nor how it will come to pass. All you have is symbology in Revelation that could mean many things, but you interpret to support your own beliefs.

That the Jews will undergo great tribulation after the Rapture of the Church (Jer.30:7, 1Thess.4:16)

This is Jeremiah 30, starting at 1 and including 7.

1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in abook all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days arecoming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity [a] and restore them tothe land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD."


 4 These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel andJudah: 5 "This is what the LORD says:
       " 'Cries of fear are heard—
       terror, not peace.

 6 Ask and see:
       Can a man bear children?
       Then why do I see every strong man       with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor,
       every face turned deathly pale?

 7 How awful that day will be!
       None will be like it.
       It will be a time of trouble for Jacob,
       but he will be saved out of it.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

I think you would have to have been already convinced of several notions in order to interpret these passages in this way.

There are no times, dates and references beyond a pre-conception.

that an Anti-Christ will arise that will come to power in peace, but will soon wage war against Israel (Dan.11, Rev.13)

Daniel 11 could be talking about anything. There is nothing there about an Anti-Christ.

Revelation 13 says nothing about Israel. I would be careful about using Revelation for anything specific. It consists of symbolism and neither you nor I have any idea what that symbolism represents on Earth.

and that He will be destroyed by the return of Christ (Dan. 2, Rev.19)

Daniel 2 has nothing at all even related to your claim. There is no mention of an Anti-Christ or Israelites.

As before, be wary of using Revelation.

and the Millennial reign will begin (Isa.65, Ezek 40-48, Rev.20).

These likewise have nothing related to what you are trying to build.

All these cites with the rolling thunder of Anti-Christ giving rise to the Millennial time fail when the scriptures you cite are examined closely.

You would have to be using the Bible as a lumberyard, browsing for passages you can possibly interpret to support what you already believe.

No reasonable man would read these passages and come the your conclusions.

You have not been able to refute a single scripture that I have given you.

Maybe not in your eyes, which have an agenda to support, but to the eyes of any other not invested in that agenda. I have shown entirely reasonable interpretation to the passages you have posted, shown that passages you post mention or mean nothing of what you claim they mention or men.

You give cites but do not reproduce the specific passages in your response, and frequently your cites are whole chapters which, when read, are off point entirely. But it certainly looks good to put out those scriptural cites, it impresses those who don't check your references.

The children of Israel do not compose the great nations, so my opinion on it is irrelevant.

I asked you, "Tell me, would you think that the children of Israel composing the great nations would be a good thing? If not, why not?"

You avoided the question. Let me clarify, to be gentle on your viewpoint, if main nations of the Earth were composed of the seed of Abraham would that be a good thing, in your estimation?

You going to avoid that one, too?

Would the fact that the children of Israel do not compose the great Gentile nations bother you?

Doesn't bother me at all. I am saved in Christ and, if nonIsraelite, am grafted onto the vine of the covenant, and am part of the new covenant brought by Jesus.

I like to slaughter sacred cows and upset the status quo.

You however, seem to be emotionally invested in your convictions, as evidenced by tones of contempt, lack of decorum, nastiness and demeaning rhetoric and name calling.

All of these reactions denote a man unsure of himself, holding to an agenda he judges essential to his survival, and experiencing great fear when challenged with reasonable arguments against his dogma.

On the contrary, it is in Ezekial we see the 12 tribes getting their land inheritance (Ezek.48) which lines up with exactly what Hosea says in Chapter 14.

But there is nothing whatsoever that places the fulfilling of Hosea at some time discussed in symbolism in Revelation, or anywhere else, for that matter. This is your notion conceived to defang Hosea for your positional comfort.

Well, you are wrong and the passage shows that very clearly.

You are wrong, and the passage shows that clearly. Only if you presume your own position that Israel merged with Judah in Palestine can you interpret the passage this way. The passage itself upbraids the Jews for killing Jesus and wishes all of the House of Israel to know of it.

If the House of Israel were present, as you claim, they would already know of it.

The Israelites were not 'occupying' anyone, they were in judgment and were dispersed throughout the Gentile lands as part of the curse of Lev.26, and Deut.28.

My point exactly. And that judgment was what? To forget their origins. They were then, after generations from the escape from Assyria and wandering into the European continent, a very long time before Christ.

This is the simplest explanation consistent with prophecy, God's promises and commonsense.

You sound like Louis Farakan!

Ah, you use the discredit by perceived association strategy?

I said that they have mixed as a people but not as Kingdom. Can you grasp the difference?

Please. A "kingdom" is a word used to describe a group of people. There simply wasn't enough "people" in Palestine or in Italy called "Jews" to support your theory.

I don't have to provide evidence for something that didn't happen. No historian says that it did.

Records exist that show large numbers of people displaying Israelite priestly garb moving north of Assyria many generations before Christ. There are God's promises which have not come to pass and there is prophecy.

I'm still waiting for evidence you have to overcome the presumption that Israel escaped from Assyria and populated Europe. This is the simplest explanation and, as such, prima facie. You have not overcome it.

The more likely view, held by historians is that those Israelites who did not blend with the Jews as Jews, assimilated with their surrounding races. So, you have to show that some mass exodus happened and that the 10 tribes went to Europe and became the nations we know today as England and America.

Hee. Let's say that the northern kingdom did absorb into other peoples, like the Jews now intermarry with other faiths ("Jew" or "Israelite" do not denote a "race"). They still carry the seed of Abraham, the covenant, and God's promises.

And they have forgotten their heritage, and have multiplied. And will, along with the mixed Jews, fulfill Hosea.

The British Israelites say that the 10 tribes went to Europe and became someone else.

That's what you said.

The 12 tribes were dispersed throughout Europe as Jews.

At the time of Christ. Not hardly. Prove it.

Thus, we find Jews at Rome when Paul gets there.

Yes, there were those of Judah in Rome. So?

No one denies the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world, that was part of the curse that they were threatened with in Deut.28:64-65-all 12 tribes, not just the Southern ones.

Your mistake is assuming that Israelites and Judah were one in the same peoples. That notion is not supportable. Beside other contrary facts, the fulfilling of Hosea and Ezekiel would have certainly been recorded, which fulfilling must have happened if, as you claim, Israel returned to Palestine and became "Jews".

And please don't give me this Millennium dodge again. You have absolutely no idea what Revelation means, just what you want it to mean. There is no settled interpretation of Revelation; there are just many contending views, of which your's is only one.

When we talk about Europe we are talking about the Jews being dispersed among the then Roman Empire that later became modern Europe.

When I'm talking about Europe, I'm talking about Ireland, England, Germany, Scandinavia and all parts north, south, east, and west. Israel has centuries to get there and raise kids.

It doesn't place the Israelites moving into Europe as tribes. When Jews were dispersed throughout Europe were done so through the various conquests. No separate entity as the Israelites went anywhere, the 12 tribes were dispersed throughout Europe and Asia as Jews.

The presumption from the evidence is there. Your theory makes less sense when contrasted with prophecy, records from the time and oblique references in the New Testament.

You keep saying the the Jews and Israelites merged, but htere is no evidence of it.

Have you found that Jew to ask which tribe he belongs to, so you can tell him he can't know? I'm waiting for you to tell of your experience.

And that is how James addresses them, as 12 tribes, not 10.

We have discussed this already. All 12 tribes, including Judah and Benjamin, were Israelites, as were the other ten tribes. The Jews were scattered and so was Israel. There is nothing that indicates they were scattered together.

So, what's your point.

It came from his own inscription. I gave you the book that it was cited from. Go to the library and look it up.

It couldn't be long. Type it up. Give me supporting references that might somehow indicate that was all the Israelites there were, and not some small part.

And ofcourse, it was not all the Israelites, but it was their capital city and it was down to only 27,000 people, so the numbers of the rest couldn't have been too great.

People? You mean men women and children? You mean those who had no fled to other parts? Or do you mean fighting men. And when was this, how many generations to replenish the population? What part of the Israelite nation were they?

God punished the Israelites. You do no kill a child to punish it, any more than you wipe out a people, especially one with which holy covenants were made, and God had already made promises to be fulfilled, which have not been fulfilled to date.

Many too many questions.

It is up to you to provide some real historical facts that support your idiotic view.

I have, which you have ignored and not refuted. Must you call names? Have you no decorum or maturity in discussion?

The work that the number is cited is in the History of Israel, 3rd edition, John Bright, 1981.

Then he should have done more research.

That has been answered.

I'm sorry. I must have missed it. Can't you answer it again? How hard is it to type "yes" or "no"?

I believe we have over-discussed the rest of your post, here.

[The British Israelites say that the 10 tribes went to Europe and became someone else.] That's what you said.

I never said that, I said that the Jews were dispersed and did not forget who they are.

[ The 12 tribes were dispersed throughout Europe as Jews. ]

At the time of Christ. Not hardly. Prove it.

Not hard to prove, they were all over and they were certainly dispersed after the fall of the Temple in 70AD.

In the Book of Acts, Paul is going throughout his journey's to the 'Jew first, and then the Gentiles'.

[ Thus, we find Jews at Rome when Paul gets there. ]

Yes, there were those of Judah in Rome. So?

So, Italy is part of Europe.

They were also spread throughout the rest of Europe and Asia Minor as shown by the first chapter of Acts where the nations they came from are listed.

[ No one denies the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world, that was part of the curse that they were threatened with in Deut.28:64-65-all 12 tribes, not just the Southern ones. ]

Your mistake is assuming that Israelites and Judah were one in the same peoples. That notion is not supportable. Beside other contrary facts, the fulfilling of Hosea and Ezekiel would have certainly been recorded, which fulfilling must have happened if, as you claim, Israel returned to Palestine and became "Jews".

No, that curse was made on all of the Hebrew people before the split in the Kingdoms.

And it pertains to all of the 12 tribes.

The only difference is that they were split before the dispersion happened, first to the 10 tribes and then to the last 2 remaining tribes.

All 12 tribes returned and were in Israel at the time of Christ and were dispersed again after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD and were not a nation again until 1948.

They will not be a Kingdom until the Millennial reign after the Tribulation occurs.

And please don't give me this Millennium dodge again. You have absolutely no idea what Revelation means, just what you want it to mean. There is no settled interpretation of Revelation; there are just many contending views, of which your's is only one.

The Millennium is clearly stated in those verses that were given to you.

You just want to deny what you read which refutes your heretical, idiotic theological view.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good fable!

[ When we talk about Europe we are talking about the Jews being dispersed among the then Roman Empire that later became modern Europe. ]

When I'm talking about Europe, I'm talking about Ireland, England, Germany, Scandinavia and all parts north, south, east, and west. Israel has centuries to get there and raise kids.

No Israelites were in those areas that did not know they were Jews.

Stop making up history.

[ It doesn't place the Israelites moving into Europe as tribes. When Jews were dispersed throughout Europe were done so through the various conquests. No separate entity as the Israelites went anywhere, the 12 tribes were dispersed throughout Europe and Asia as Jews. ]

The presumption from the evidence is there. Your theory makes less sense when contrasted with prophecy, records from the time and oblique references in the New Testament.

You have zero evidence and no presumption of anything like that happening, not from history, not from prophecy, not from anything in the New Testament.

And to keep repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth.

No Israelites moved anywhere after the Assyrian captivity except in your fantasy world.

They were either assimilated into the surrounding people or they were joined with the Southern tribes and became intermingled with them and became known as Jews as well.

You keep saying the the Jews and Israelites merged, but htere is no evidence of it.

Ofcourse there is, they were in Israel when the Lord was there and Peter addresses them in Acts 2 as the House of Israel.

James sends out an epistle to the 12 tribes.

There is alot more evidence of there assimilation then your myth of the tribes roaming to Europe and then forgetting that they are Hebrews!

Have you found that Jew to ask which tribe he belongs to, so you can tell him he can't know? I'm waiting for you to tell of your experience.

Why should I ask any Jew anything since he cannot know what tribe he is from.

He has no records to tell him.

All the genealogical records were destroyed.

[ And that is how James addresses them, as 12 tribes, not 10. ]

We have discussed this already. All 12 tribes, including Judah and Benjamin, were Israelites, as were the other ten tribes. The Jews were scattered and so was Israel. There is nothing that indicates they were scattered together.

And there is nothing to indicate that they did not know who they were either.

So, if those tribes were in the Roman Empire (which they were) they were intermingled as a people, not as a separate entity, with differing tribes.

James was writing to saved Christians who had been Jews from each of the 12 tribes, scattered throughout the Roman Empire, including Britain.

So, what's your point.

The point is you do not know what you are talking about-get the point?

[ It came from his own inscription. I gave you the book that it was cited from. Go to the library and look it up. ]

It couldn't be long. Type it up. Give me supporting references that might somehow indicate that was all the Israelites there were, and not some small part.

No, go and look it up, you are clearly intellectually a very lazy person.

[ And ofcourse, it was not all the Israelites, but it was their capital city and it was down to only 27,000 people, so the numbers of the rest couldn't have been too great. ]

People? You mean men women and children? You mean those who had no fled to other parts? Or do you mean fighting men. And when was this, how many generations to replenish the population? What part of the Israelite nation were they?

It means all the people of the city, which totalled only 27,000.

We have already seen that the army had been whittled down to only 10,000 men in an earlier chapter.

The Northern Kingdom was a shell of itself when it was finally dispersed, it did not number in the millions as you conjure up in your fertile imagination.

God punished the Israelites. You do no kill a child to punish it, any more than you wipe out a people, especially one with which holy covenants were made, and God had already made promises to be fulfilled, which have not been fulfilled to date.

You really are a very slow person aren't you?

Did I say that the 10 tribes were wiped out?

They still exist, as Jews.

Many too many questions.

Only for those who do not want the real answers.

Not mythology.

[ It is up to you to provide some real historical facts that support your idiotic view. ]

I have, which you have ignored and not refuted. Must you call names? Have you no decorum or maturity in discussion?

You have not provided any facts to anything.

As for calling names, if you want to keep posting nonsense and reject the truth, that is what you deserve, rebuke and ridicule.

[ The work that the number is cited is in the History of Israel, 3rd edition, John Bright, 1981. ]

Then he should have done more research.

He did alot more research then you ever did.

He actually has historical evidence.

And you have-your opinion!

[ That has been answered. ]

I'm sorry. I must have missed it. Can't you answer it again? How hard is it to type "yes" or "no"?

How hard is it to look up an old post.

Look it up.

I believe we have over-discussed the rest of your post, here.

Actually we have not discussed anything, you just continue to reject the truth of the Bible, history, and logic.

But if you keep posting me your nonsense, I will keep responding to it, I know the tactics of you bunch of frauds.

[Well, you are wrong and the passage shows that very clearly.]

You are wrong, and the passage shows that clearly. Only if you presume your own position that Israel merged with Judah in Palestine can you interpret the passage this way. The passage itself upbraids the Jews for killing Jesus and wishes all of the House of Israel to know of it. If the House of Israel were present, as you claim, they would already know of it.

The House of Israel is the one who is being addressed and they are told what they had done.

That is why they ask, 'what shall we do'.

The English is very clear, but you guys have a problem with simple English sentences.

[ The Israelites were not 'occupying' anyone, they were in judgment and were dispersed throughout the Gentile lands as part of the curse of Lev.26, and Deut.28. ]

My point exactly. And that judgment was what? To forget their origins. They were then, after generations from the escape from Assyria and wandering into the European continent, a very long time before Christ.

And where does it state that they would forget who they were as part of the curse on them-no where!

The curse is that they would cease to be a Kingdom, not a people.

The curse is on them as a people and it will continue until the Millennnial reign when all 12 tribes are reinstated and receive their land inhertances as stated very clearly in Ezek.48.

This is the simplest explanation consistent with prophecy, God's promises and commonsense.

No, that is not the simplest explanation, nor is it consistent with prophecy and God's promises, since there is no history of it, nor is it in prophecy that those tribes would forget who they were!

Dumbest thing I every heard.

[ You sound like Louis Farakan! ]

Ah, you use the discredit by perceived association strategy?

Well, doesn't he say that the blacks have forgotten their heritage as well?

That view that an entire people have forgotten who they are is for kooks and you British Israelite guys fit right in there with them.

[ I said that they have mixed as a people but not as Kingdom. Can you grasp the difference? ]

Please. A "kingdom" is a word used to describe a group of people. There simply wasn't enough "people" in Palestine or in Italy called "Jews" to support your theory.

That was because they weren't a kingdom in Italy or Palestine at the time of the Roman Empire.

They were under the authority of Rome, not a Kingdom.

And a Kingdom doesn't have to be a particular size.

A kingdom can be quite small.

[ I don't have to provide evidence for something that didn't happen. No historian says that it did. ]

Records exist that show large numbers of people displaying Israelite priestly garb moving north of Assyria many generations before Christ. There are God's promises which have not come to pass and there is prophecy.

Those were the tribes moved by Assyria.

There is no record of those tribes moving anywhere else-now is there?.

So stop repeating things that has nothing to do with proving your theory.

We know that the 10 tribes were dispersed to the Assyrian empire that is in the records.

What is not in the records is that those same tribes went anywhere.

That is what you have to show to prove your thesis.

Not that they were in Northern Assyria.

I'm still waiting for evidence you have to overcome the presumption that Israel escaped from Assyria and populated Europe. This is the simplest explanation and, as such, prima facie. You have not overcome it.

I don't have to prove anything.

You have to prove that they did.

Since there is no records of any such movement, it is an historical myth.

Your logic is as bad as your historical knowledge.

History is about showing facts, which you cannot do, not putting forth conjecture and then asking me to prove them wrong.

I can't prove that a UFO didn't move them either.

[ The more likely view, held by historians is that those Israelites who did not blend with the Jews as Jews, assimilated with their surrounding races. So, you have to show that some mass exodus happened and that the 10 tribes went to Europe and became the nations we know today as England and America. ]

Hee. Let's say that the northern kingdom did absorb into other peoples, like the Jews now intermarry with other faiths ("Jew" or "Israelite" do not denote a "race"). They still carry the seed of Abraham, the covenant, and God's promises.

Yes, that is true.

And those of the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (known today as Jews) would be the heirs to the Covenant.

Are there individuals who do not know they have Jewish blood, yes I am sure there are.

But an entire group of 10 tribes didn't stop knowing who they were and become a different race of people.

And they have forgotten their heritage, and have multiplied. And will, along with the mixed Jews, fulfill Hosea.

Hosea will be fulfilled after the Millennial reign.

There is still a Tribulation ahead in which most of mankind is going to be wiped out, including 3/4 of the seed of Abraham.

So, your attempts to deal with the population issue in Hosea are based on your own poor theology which doesn't know that God is going to repopulate Israel with the 12 tribes after most are destroyed, as stated very clearly in Matt.24 and Zech.13