Posted on 07/07/2007 7:48:37 PM PDT by tnarg
Mark it down as biblical truth: There is no pre-tribulation rapture.
However, untold thousands believe in the "secret rapture of the church" prior to the tribulation period. This is because untold thousands don't want to have to think of suffering through a tribulation time frame. The late Corrie ten Boom called this pre-trib rapture teaching the "American doctrine." Go figure.
The belief in a secret rapture of believers before the tribulation is also because of a best-seller, "The Late, Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey which was set loose in the l960s. It has been a paperback aggressively pushed by practically every evangelical / fundamentalist engine going.
Theologians, videos, films and preachers bolster up this myth with their earnest preachings and teachings.
Yet this is nothing but a myth, accented as much by certain theologically conservative Protestant segments similar unto the Roman Catholic underlining of the immaculate conception of Mary. Nevertheless, if there is no biblical support for such a Mariology teaching, it is bogus. Likewise, the pre-tribulation rapture teaching is bogus.
The pre-trib rapture concept was manufactured in the 1800s in an 18 year old Plymouth Brethren girl's dream, told to her Pastor, John Darby, and then relayed to C. I. Scofield who bought into the dream as revealed truth. Scofield placed this pre-tribulation rapture notion as a footnote in his popular Bible, hence the spread of the myth.
However, just the opposite is biblical truth. In Matthew 24:29-3l, for instance, the rapture ("gathering together") is placed in the same time frame as the open second coming of Jesus Christ. And all of this is "after the tribulation" (verse 29). That is it in a nutshell!
Yet pre-tribulation rapturists sidestep this clear passage for more oblique passages. The latter are twisted and turned in order to fit into the "American doctrine." Yet such twisting is not sound exegesis. And for biblically-riveted evangelicals and fundamentalists to commit this drastic error is bordering on the horrific.
All other passages in Scripture relating to the "gathering together unto Him" must refer back to the literal time line provided by Jesus in Matthew 24.
One must not use a symbolic passage in the Book of Revelation or any other symbolically-based section of the Bible by which to draw a pre-tribulation rapture doctrine.
Further, one must not take words of the apostle Paul so as to insert them opportunistically into a conjured pre-tribulation string of Scripture references. Yet this has been done ad infinitum.
Instead, Jesus' literalism of Matthew 24 must be used as the benchmark for all other "gathering together" themes of Scripture.
One starts with literalism and moves into symbolism when seeking to understand Scripture; it is not the other way around.
During the 1970s and 1980s there was much written and preached about a pre-tribulation rapture. This has wound down some in the last decade or so. Why?
Today, with the world situation being what it is, there is not that much risk-taking in preaching dogmatically the pre-tribulation rapture. Why?
Is it because there are many who are beginning to question its validity? Is it because the world state is so uncertain that to go out on a limb with a false hope may ricochet?
One wonders, with world events progressively becoming more and more anti-Christian, why the pre-tribulation rapture persons are not celebrating each dawn as the day when Jesus may return to earth.
Such is not the phenomenon on a large scale. Furthermore, it may be because the next generation has not bought into this notion.
In any case, it is a myth, a legend of conservative Protestantism's own conjuring and has no base in the Holy Scriptures.
Yet these very Protestants are the ones who ardently point out the myths of Catholicism while holding to some of their own myths. Both segments of Christendom need to do some serious housecleaning of manufactured legends in order to return to the simple Bible truths; otherwise, the church suffers from severe lack of knowledge.
What is so frightening about holding to a pre-tribulation rapture? It is more than mere academic quibbling. Holding to such a notion is drastically weakening the church worldwide.
The church should be preparing for spiritual battle against the most evil forces arrayed by hell.
Instead, the church is languishing with a false hope. This is all orchestrated by the demonic powers in order to eventuate in a limp army of believers. And to see that through in this age of laxity in religion does not take much on the part of the dark powers. In addition, the apostate segment of religion is doing its fair share of blackening truth.
Does it take much intelligence to realize that there are awesomely wretched days yet ahead for the righteous remnant?
Those who are not strong will drop--fall away, as biblically predicted. They will be too numerous to contemplate. But for those who are truly into carrying the daily cross there will be nothing able to thwart their zeal for Christ.
Already the remnant is being strengthened by the Spirit of light. He is gathering His own together in the power of the resurrection and the might of the revealed Word. There numbers are few; but their ardor before the Father is lovingly honored.
Set your vision upon the difficulties yet to be. They are but the trials permitted by the coming Christ.
At the close of the tribulation period, then there will be the gathering together of the believers from the four corners of the earth. They will greet Jesus in the clouds as He descends through space, having left the right hand of the Father in heaven.
The gathering together ("rapture") and the second advent then will be realized as one and the same event occurring at the end of the tribulation time frame. Jesus' declaration in Matthew 24:29-3l states it clearly.
You believe that these 3 sons of one mother and father are of 3 different races? You believe that Ham became a black man because "he saw his father's nakedness"?
Can a Etphiopian change his skin? (Jer.13:23), well the line of Abraham, Issac and Jacob cannot change their racial line.
If an "Ethiopian can't change his skin", then how did Noah's sons change theirs? Also, no one has said that the children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob changed their racial line.
Do you think that the United States of America would not be mentioned in the Bible? Do you not feel that it is the most blessed nation, the One Nation Under God, for a reason. Don't you see His hand in it?
The people who are living in Israel today, calling themselves Jews, are actually impostors who mistakenly identify themselves with the Israelites, but are, in fact, descendants of Judah and are not the chosen people of God and are not part of the covenant of God
I don't know where the writer of this article got that but it is trash. All of the tribes are God's chosen people, as GOD HIMSELF tells us. Have you ever seen one place, during this discussion, that it was mentioned Judah was not part of the tribes, was not part of the chosen people? Rather, it has been the exact opposite.
It provides a convenient foundation for the justification of attacks on the current Jewish people and the anti-Semitism that is found in the world today. By joining themselves to the teaching and belief, people claim that they are not anti-Semitic because the real Jews are Anglo-Saxons and therefore they, themselves, are the true Semites. Their attacks on the Jewish people of today are, therefore, exposing the fraud and deception that is inherent in the modern Jewish claim that they are Israelites.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for posting this. If you have read anything either Diego or I have posted you know we have never said anything like what, I assume, you are trying to have others believe we mean.
As far as the linguistic claims listed, they sound pretty credible to me - don't they to you?
The apologists for the belief twist and misuse historical events in a manner that distort the reality of events and confuse the uninitiated. The words and theories may sound important to those who do not know better, but the reality of what is being said is nonsense.
There are false prophets and they do twist, misue and confuse. However, if you read His Word, as He wants us to, He explains it to us. He has taken a lot of space in His Word to explain His chosen people. Instead of studying that you dig up someone who is twisting, misusing and confusing people and decide to post it.
They never migrated, they were dispersed.
And not everyone from those tribes were dispersed, but remained in the Southern Kingdom, as the Bible also states.
What you are talking about is mere fantasy, not biblical fact.
Do you think that the United States of America would not be mentioned in the Bible? Do you not feel that it is the most blessed nation, the One Nation Under God, for a reason. Don't you see His hand in it?
Yes, I see God's hand in the United States, but God has used many Gentile nations in the past and they are not mentioned in the Bible either.
All Gentile nations to God are nothing to Him, only the nation of Israel is His chosen people.
The other nations are blessed because of their relationship with it.(Gen.12)
[ The people who are living in Israel today, calling themselves Jews, are actually impostors who mistakenly identify themselves with the Israelites, but are, in fact, descendants of Judah and are not the chosen people of God and are not part of the covenant of God ]
I don't know where the writer of this article got that but it is trash. All of the tribes are God's chosen people, as GOD HIMSELF tells us. Have you ever seen one place, during this discussion, that it was mentioned Judah was not part of the tribes, was not part of the chosen people? Rather, it has been the exact opposite.
What I have seen is that a separation is made between Judah/Benjamin and the other tribes as if those tribes were not Jewish which they are.
[ It provides a convenient foundation for the justification of attacks on the current Jewish people and the anti-Semitism that is found in the world today. By joining themselves to the teaching and belief, people claim that they are not antisemitic because the real Jews are Anglo-Saxons and therefore they, themselves, are the true Semites. Their attacks on the Jewish people of today are, therefore, exposing the fraud and deception that is inherent in the modern Jewish claim that they are Israelites. ]
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for posting this. If you have read anything either Diego or I have posted you know we have never said anything like what, I assume, you are trying to have others believe we mean.
No, the author doesn't claim that every British Israelite is antisemitic, only that it can lead that by assuming that God is now blessing the Gentile (who are the 'real' lost tribes.
As far as the linguistic claims listed, they sound pretty credible to me - don't they to you?
No, they don't.
They are ridiculous.
[ The apologists for the belief twist and misuse historical events in a manner that distort the reality of events and confuse the uninitiated. The words and theories may sound important to those who do not know better, but the reality of what is being said is nonsense. ]
There are false prophets and they do twist, misue and confuse. However, if you read His Word, as He wants us to, He explains it to us. He has taken a lot of space in His Word to explain His chosen people. Instead of studying that you dig up someone who is twisting, misusing and confusing people and decide to post it.
I posted an article explaining what British Israelites teach.
Now there may be differences between particular groups,but in general, there is a view that the 10 tribes are 'lost' and have become some other race.
That is simply nonsense.
You believe that these 3 sons of one mother and father are of 3 different races? You believe that Ham became a black man because "he saw his father's nakedness"?
They became the three different families because the DNA code was in their genes.
Ham seeing his father's nakedness had nothing to do with the family line that would come from him.
Now, when you trace each families genealogy, those are the nations that are created from each son.
[ Can a Etphiopian change his skin? (Jer.13:23), well the line of Abraham, Issac and Jacob cannot change their racial line.]
If an "Ethiopian can't change his skin", then how did Noah's sons change theirs? Also, no one has said that the children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob changed their racial line.
Noah's sons didn't change anything.
We do not know the DNA makeup of Noah's wife or the Son's wives.
And the Children of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob haven't become anyone else, they are Jews, Israelites, Hebrews, heirs to the Covenant Promises of God.
And no other family line is.
Really?
Funny, I haven't seen anything that would make me think that.
But than again, you do have a very vivid imagination.
[ But there will another Temple before Ezekials Temple, the one the anti-Christ will sit in (2Thess.2) proclaiming himeself to be god. ]
You're right in that the scripture does say "Temple", and I could be wrong about this, but when the scripture was written there was a Temple there and there is another "holy" place on the same site now. I believe the Dome of the rock is where the anti-christ will sit. That brings more meaning to the scripture "For their rock is not as our Rock...", (Deu.32:31)
Well, you are wrong about that also
Another Temple will be built since the sacrifices will start again (Dan.8:11-12, Mt.24:15, Rev.11:2)
[ And who are these 12 tribes which you seem to take great pains in avoiding in naming? ]
I don't understand why you say that. They are the same 12 named in the Bible.
Well, then they must still be in existance since they are returned.
So, where do you think they are now?
[ And what particular religion are you and your partner Diego? ]
As I don't speak for my "partner" Diego, you will need to direct the question to him. I'm happy to answer for me and tell you that I am Christian.
Well, I hope that you are truely a Christian, but you are very confused on this issue, not knowing that the Jews are all 12 tribes, not just the Southern ones.
That is why James wrote to them all and they were all in existance when he wrote them and were considered Jews, Israelites and Hebrews.
They became the three different families because the DNA code was in their genes.
FTD, when was the last time you saw one man and his wife have 3 different races of children? It doesn't happen and it didn't happen.
The clue to the answer is found in Gen.6:19. Look up the word "flesh" in your Strong's Concordance. That is where the races came from. Most of our churches don't teach that either but God does.
You gave up Biblical logic along time ago.
[ The 12 tribes compose a race, as well as a nation.You are either of a Gentile race or the Jewish race (all 12 tribes.) ]
I asked you in post #204 to provide me with scripture showing that the Tribes of the North were ever call Jews. I see you have still not done this so we can probably assume that you cannot find it. This point will be awarded to me.
LOL!
It is a 'point' without significance.
The other tribes were mixed with the Southern ones, so the term 'Jew' equally applies to them all.
Just because those other tribes are not mentioned in the New Testament as such (with the exception of Asar), doesn't mean they are not there, only that they are not mentioned.
So you are trying to make a point by proving a negative, which is a logical fallacy.
I have given you Biblical proof that the folks in James 1 and in Peter 1 were Israelites Strong's # 1290. diaspora (dee-as-por-ah')dispersion, i.e. (specially and concretely) the (converted) Israelite resident in Gentile countries.
Oh, stop your lying!
You have given no proof at all.
Running to Strong's to find a definition you want isn't any proof.
Peter was writing to saved Gentiles (strangers) and James was writing to the 12 tribes.(Jews)
Trying to use a Strong definition to reinterpret the verse to make it say something it doesn't is a sure sign that you have lost the argument.
Deal with what the verses actually say not with what you want to them to say and twist them to make them read that way.
The term strangers is used by Paul to refer to Gentiles outside of the Covenant, and Peter is using it in the same way.
James writes to the 12 tribes which means all those who were then called Jews.
I have also shown you that the folks who came back from Babylon were considered to be of only three tribes, but were all known as Jews because two of those tribes had migrated to Judah....and folks who lived in Judah were called Jews. [Ezra 1:5] Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem.
Yes, and it was shown to you that mixed in with the Southern Kingdom were many from those other tribes that were not dispersed by Assyria, and thus, went into the exile with the Southern Kingdom as well.
You conveniently ignore those groups
6 So the posts went with the letters from the king and his princes throughout all Israel and Judah, and according to the commandment of the king, saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again unto the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria.
I have also shown you that the word Jew in Hebrew means: Strong's #3064. Yhuwdiy (yeh-hoo-dee')a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (i.e. Judah) I have also shown you that the word Jew in Greek means: Strong's #2453. Ioudaios (ee-oo-dah'-yos)as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah I have also shown you that the word Israelite in Hebrew means: Strong's #3481. Yisr'eliy (yis-reh-ay-lee')a Jisreelite or descendant of Jisrael Now I am going to show you what the word Israelite means in Greek. It is used twice in the New Testament [John 1:47] and [Romans 11:1] Strong's #2475. Israelites (is-rah-ale-ee'-tace)an "Israelite", i.e. descendant of Israel (literally or figuratively. Well.....everyone has now learned that Jews are from the tribe of Judah. They have also learned that Judah is one of the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel). Consequently, everyone now knows that the other eleven sons....and their descendants did not call themselves Jews...............but, they were all Israelites.
And you seem to have forgotten that the tribes of Benjamin and Levi are also called Jews yet do not show up in these 'definitions'
So, your little word games are just that, word games.
The ISBE states, 'Jew' denotes originally an inhabitant of Judah applies to the two tribes of the Southern kingdom, but later the meaning was extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham. (emphasis added)
Yes, I know. You still don't understand.
I understand that you don't know what you are talking about!
Jews and Israelites are synonymous terms today based on what the Bible teaches.
By the way, the Thayer/BDB definition states that the word diaspora can also refer to Christians scattered among Gentiles.
Clearly, you are very limited in your study skills, but when you are trying to make the facts fit a preconceived theory, you must ignore any contrary evidence.
Yes, because you lost and do not know what you are talking about.
All the tribes are represented under the general term 'Jew' as it was used in the New Testament, when Christ was called the King of the Jews.
Do you think He is only King of the Southern tribes!
They became the three different families because the DNA code was in their genes. FTD, when was the last time you saw one man and his wife have 3 different races of children? It doesn't happen and it didn't happen.
It didn't!
When was the last time you saw someone live to over 900 years old?
That DNA code, establishing the three major families worked over the generations.
God knew what He was going to do and could have easily given the required DNA combination in both Noah and his wife and the wifes of the three sons.
I am amazed how dogmatic you are on what God can do or can't do!
The clue to the answer is found in Gen.6:19. Look up the word "flesh" in your Strong's Concordance. That is where the races came from. Most of our churches don't teach that either but God does.
Oh, another run to Strongs!
And I don't see anything in there that would state anything differently then what I said.
Noah was the father of all three different families, Shem, Ham and Japheth, each represent the three different races.
And what is the 'deep' significance of this 'fact'that you think you have found in the Bible that the Jews and Israelites are two different people.
I win!
III. The name of “Jew” and “Israelite” became synonymous terms from about the time of the Captivity. It is one of the absurd fallacies of Anglo-Israelism to presuppose that the term “Jew” stands for a bodily descendant of “Judah.” It stands for all those from among the sons of Jacob who acknowledged themselves, or were considered, subjects of the theocratic kingdom of Judah, which they expected to be established by the promised “Son of David “—the Lion of the tribe of Judah—whose reign is to extend not only over “all the tribes of the land,” but also “from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”
“That the name ‘Jew,’ writes a Continental Bible scholar, “became general for all Israelites who were anxious to preserve their theocratic nationality, was the more natural, since the political independence of the Ten Tribes was destroyed.” Yes, and without any hope of a restoration to a separate national existence. What hopes and promises they had were, as we have seen, linked with the Kingdom of Judah and the House of David.
Anglo-Israelism teaches that members of the Ten Tribes are never called “Jews,” and that “Jews “are not “Israelites”; but both assertions are false. Who were they that came back to the land after the “Babylonian” exile? Anglo-Israelites say they were only the exiles from the southern kingdom of Judah, and call them “Jews.” I have already shown this to be a fallacy, but I might add the significant fact that in the Book of Ezra this remnant is only called eight times by the name “Jews,” and no less than forty times by the name “Israel.” In the Book of Nehemiah they are called “Jews” eleven times, and “Israel” twenty-two times. As to those who remained behind in the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the Persian Empire, which included all the territories of ancient Assyria, Anglo-Israelites would say they were of the kingdom of “Israel”; but in the Book of Esther, where we get a vivid glimpse of them at a period subsequent to the partial restoration under Zerubbabel and Joshua, they are called forty-five times by the name Jews,” and not once by the name “Israel” !
In the New Testament the same people who are called “Jews” one hundred and seventy-four times are also called “Israel” no fewer than seventy-five times. Anglo-Israelism asserts that a “Jew” ‘is only a descendant of Judah, and is not an “Israelite”; but Paul says more than once: “I am a man which am a Jew.” Yet he says: “For I also am an Israelite.” “Are they Israelites ? so am I” (Acts 21:39; 22:3 Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor. 11: 22; Phil. 3:5).
Our Lord ‘was of the House of David, and of the tribe of Judah after the flesh—”a Jew”; yet it says that it is of “Israel” that He came, who is “over all, God blessed for ever” (Rom. 9:4, 5). Devout Anna was a “Jewess” in Jerusalem, yet she was “of the tribe of Aser.” But enough on this point.
http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/152c.htm
When someone says that you knows that he has his head handed to him!
LOL!
I assume that to mean you believe in the Trinity?
Bingo! Correct me if I haven't made this very clear "Ping Pong",.....but isn't this what I have been saying all along? I believe I have made countless statements that the tribes that emigrated to Judah (Benjamin and Levi) as well as the individual folks from the other tribes all became known as Jews. They had been...and still were, Israelites!
You know.....back in post #180, I said I was not a British Israelite....and I believe this post was also directed to you, "FTD". Why do you continue to cast aspersions about this?
The name of “Jew” and “Israelite” became synonymous terms from about the time of the Captivity.
I think one of the difficult things people come up against.... in this study of the tribes, is understanding there were two captivities....Assyrian (721 B.C.) and Babylonian (595 B.C.) It was after the Babylonian captivity that the Books of The Kings and The Chronicles were written showing the separation of the two Kingdoms and the ensuing difficulties that developed. This is indeed when the Old Testament writers began calling the Southern Kingdom Jewish. They were already known as Israelites (Judah was a son of Israel).
Anglo-Israelism teaches that members of the Ten Tribes are never called “Jews,” and that “Jews “are not “Israelites”
I have never said that the Jews were not of Israel...in fact I believe I have been adamant in saying they were. The Holy Scriptures, although....do not ever call the tribes of the north Jews.
In the Book of Ezra this remnant is only called eight times by the name “Jews,” and no less than forty times by the name “Israel.” In the Book of Nehemiah they are called “Jews” eleven times, and “Israel” twenty-two times.
There is no problem calling this remnant from Babylon....Israelites or Israel. They are both. I have never said they were not!
I think some folks have a tendency to fly off the handle on this issue....not really understanding the Biblical history of it all. They, for some reason, become defensive when you quote scripture that shows the Northern Kingdom to not be Jewish....and thinking that maybe they are dealing with an antisemitic person. Nothing could be further than the truth. All Israel will be saved....and this includes the Jews! [Romans 11:26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
Zech 8:13 And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
So, every tribe is represented under the title of 'Jew'.
And if you think that the term Israelite and Jew are used interchangably for any of the members of the 12 tribes, and all 12 tribes are present as Jews, then we are not in any disagreement.
When Christ says He is King of the Jews, He is King over all 12 tribes of the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which still exist as Jews.
But to think this is some great historical biblical discovery is quite funny.
The members of the 10 tribes were either absorbed into the nations around them (being lost) or survived by remaining with Judea.
Everyone knows that.
And the reason I keep associating you with the British Israelites is because you keep using their same goofy arguments.
And so who do you think is Israel?
If you agree that the among the Jews there are all of the 12 tribes, then who do you think is 'Israel'?
Stop the doubletalking.
[Acts 2:5] And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. You're right....he called them Jews. He did not, nor did the Holy Spirit, say they were of The Northern Kingdom. As stated in postings earlier, not all of the Jews came back from the Babylonian exile. Mordacai, [Esther 2:5] was a good example. He is still living in Susa (modern Iran). This is anywhere from 486 B.C. to 424 B.C. depending on which Xerxes you think was King [Esther 1:1]. This was 50/100 years after the return from Babylon. Consequently there were Jews all over the civilized world at that time (first century A.D.).....and they still made pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the (Shavuot) festivals.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Yup! In verse 22 he addresses them as Men of Israel....which they indeed were. But, remember in verse 5 he calls them Jews. Jews are of the House of Israel also......so what is your quandary here? Don't forget, Peter and the twelve had been commissioned to go to "The House of Israel" and to stay away from the Gentiles. This would indeed include the Jews and when Peter makes the statement in verse 36 it is a reminder of what Our Saviour had instructed them to do in [Matthew 10:5-6].
Many folks have falsely assumed that the Apostles were allowed to go to the Gentles also....but that was not the case. That was the reason for Paul's selection....to go to the Gentiles. Peter and the twelve were given strict instructions not to go there. So.....for Peter to include "The House of Israel" (verse 36) in his general call to salvation, is nothing to wonder about.
So, every tribe is represented under the title of 'Jew'.
Nope! It doesn't say that at all.
And if you think that the term Israelite and Jew are used interchangeably for any of the members of the 12 tribes, and all 12 tribes are present as Jews, then we are not in any disagreement.
I never said that. I said that the only the Jews (descendants of Judah and citizens of Judah....or Judea) can use the term interchangeably.
When Christ says He is King of the Jews, He is King over all 12 tribes of the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which still exist as Jews.
Can you show me where He says that?....chapter and verse?
I don't know. They have been lost to history. Everyone knew where they were in the first century....Peter and James sent them letters....Josephus said they were yet beyond the Euphrates and of such a large number that no one could estimate it.....and outside of Roman control. Our Lord told the Twelve to go to them [Matthew 10:5-6] and [John 21:15-17].
When the Assyrian Empire imploded (600 B.C.) the ten tribes were without taskmasters. Of course many had received their freedom prior to that and some had settled around the Black Sea [1 Peter 1:1-3]. Paul, as an a Apostle to the Gentiles, was even told to stay away from this area [Acts 16:6-8] as it was the responsibility of Peter and the twelve. Paul may have alluded to them in [Colossians 3:11] as many folks considered them to be Barbarians.....and Scythians are a possibility also.
The Assyrian Empire had been replaced by the Parthians and some folks believe them to be part of the tribes of Israel. I don't know. There are reports of people living in Japan and India who claim to be descendants from the tribes. Who knows?
One thing is for certain....God Knows! [Amos 9:9] For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel (All Twelve Tribes) among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
Two books are devoted to the return of the Jews from Babylon....Ezra and Nehemiah. There is no mention in scripture of the return of the Ten Tribes from Assyria.
Stop the double talking.
I don't double talk about scripture or anything related to it.
That is exactly what you have been doing!
The 10 tribes are among the Jews as made clear by the passages that stated that many of them were not deported by Assyria.
So when Paul said all Israel will be saved he meant the all of the 12 tribes, which are the Jews.
Those who were dispersed by the Assyrians are gone, but those who remained with the Southern Kingdom came back with them from the Babylonian captivity.
All of the 12 tribes of Israel have representatives among the Jews, not just Judah.
Your contention that while Jews are Israelites, Israelites are not Jews is a false one.
Israelites and Jews are really one term representing all of the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The 'Lost House of Israel' was present in Palestine when the Lord, their King was presented to them (Mt.10) and they, as were the House of Judah, were responsible for killing Him (Acts.2:36) and both are considered as Jews (1Thess.2:14-15)
And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...(Zech.8:13)
So there are two Houses mentioned, the House of Judah (who you state are the Jews) and the House of Israel, who represent the other tribes.
And that is whom Peter was addressing as Jews, both Houses.
[ When Christ says He is King of the Jews, He is King over all 12 tribes of the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which still exist as Jews. ]
Can you show me where He says that?....chapter and verse?
Ofcourse, Christ is King over all 12 tribes, because that is the unconditional fullment of the Davidic Covenant (Ps.89:33-35), which is a united Kingdom (Ezek.48)
So, now you are trying to deny that Christ isn't the King of the other 10 tribes?
Boy, you have really gone off the deep end!
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.