Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church

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.

No one 'learned' any such thing, you just made that up to make it fit your theology.

So....you believe that God was just kidding when He said this:[Deuteronomy 23:3] An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: (1500 B.C.)

And, if so....you also believe He was just kidding when He said this: [Ezra 9:1] Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. (500 B.C.)

And if you believe God was just joking around, having the Holy Spirit play games with Moses and Ezra, I'm sure you have no difficulty in believing that Nehemiah was just garbage in/garbage out also: [Nehemiah 13:23-26] In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. (500 B.C.)

YEAH.........Let's not forget Solomon: [I Kings 11:1-2] But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. (950 B.C.)

So.....Solomon was committing a sin by having relationships with Moabite women.....but it was O.K. for Boaz (300 years earlier) to go ahead and marry one. It was still an abomination to God for His children to marry Moabite women 1000 years after the Deuteronomy command as they returned from their Babylonian captivity [Ezra and Nehemiah], but as far as you are concerned this is all poppycock.

You need need to take off your Roman Catholic/Protestant view of Eternity and start paying attention to what The Lord is telling you in His holy pages of scripture! You have demonstrated time after time you are lacking in knowledge and instead of humbly accepting correction as I have been giving you....you continue to lash out with invectives, accusations and and uninformed theories.

Ruth was a Moabite.(Ru.2:2)

Ruth was an Israelite of the Israelite territory of Moab. Moab: 7704. sadeh (saw-deh')or saday {saw-dah'-ee}; from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat) country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild. [Ruth 2:6] And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said, It is the Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab.

If Samuel had wished to portray Ruth as a heathen Moabitess women.....he would have been guided by the Holy Spirit to say Ruth was from the "Kingdom of Moab". He didn't ........and you have made a mockery of the Word of God!

And the God in Ruth is God,(Ru.1:16) not a human judge.

[Ruth 1:16] And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: 430. 'elohiym (el-o-heem')gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative

[Ruth 1:17] Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.3068. Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw')(the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Hebrew name of God

Most intelligent people would ask....."Why does Ruth use two different names for God in verses 16 and 17?" Most intelligent people then understand she wasn't speaking of God in verse 16.....but the translators were too ignorant in their interpretation to understand that. She was speaking of the judges who ruled in Israel at that time (verse 1)!

I'm not going to say you now know it also.....because I know you have already learned this from me. What I am going to say is......stop and really consider how silly your position actually is. There is absolutely no excuse for continued ignorance once you know the truth.

Ruth being a heathen Moabitess women is a nice "touchy-feely" story for your Catholic/Protestant friends. If you wish to go along with this heresy and believe that The Lord allowed a pagan women to be in the direct lineage to his own Son, Our Messiah....then your future understanding of God's Holy Words are in much jeopardy. Like I said......"it's touchy-feely", but not scriptural!

Don't forget.....God rent the Kingdom of Israel in two for Solomon doing just the same thing you are accusing Boaz of doing.

[And the God in Ruth is God,(Ru.1:16) not a human judge. [Ruth 1:16] And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:]

430. 'elohiym (el-o-heem')gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative [Ruth 1:17] Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.3068. Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw')(the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Hebrew name of God

LOL!

Here is someone who admits that doesn't read Hebrew telling translators who do, that they aren't 'smart enough' to translate the word correctly!

The fact is context tells you the correct translation of the word, and the context in both is God, not judges.

Now the fact is that Elohim is the word used for God in Gen.1:1 (Triune God), not judges.

Second, by calling God Jehovah (Lord) she was acknowledging a personal relationship with the God of the Hebrews, the God of Creation.

Any intelligent person would see that.

What you and your other B.I. buddies are a bunch of Bible wresting heretics who cannot even read a simple english sentence like John 19:25.

Anyone who could read that sentence in English and get four women out of it rather then 3 is almost illiterate-in English!

But you are going to come in and try to retranslate a translation and claim that those who actually know that language got it wrong!

What hubris!

Oh, it is scriptural and the fact is that the passage in Ruth 2:2 makes that very clear.

She was a Moabite and your anti-Christian B.I. lies cannot change that reality, even with your lame attempts at twisting the scripture!

Don't forget.....God rent the Kingdom of Israel in two for Solomon doing just the same thing you are accusing Boaz of doing.

Hey why don't you actually read the scripture!

Boaz took one wife, not a thousand.

Solomon's wife's kept their pagan religions, which Solomon actually adopted, including child sacrifice.

Ruth took the Israeli faith and thus, was considered part of the Hebrew faith.

Joseph also took a 'foreign' wife did he violate the covenant?

It was taking foreign wives that kept their false religion that was condemned, not taking wives, who would follow the correct faith.

Your knowledge of the Bible is so poor as to be considered laughable if it weren't for the fact that you actually consider yourself some kind of bible 'scholar'.

You are just a scorner 2. A scoffer; a derider; in Scripture, one who scoffs at religion, its ordinances and teachers,

You scorn Christianity and its truths, which are based on what the Bible actually teaches on the Trinity, Grace, the Eternal Punishment for the Lost, and the unconditional promises to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the 12 tribes of Israel.

You have the colossal arrogance to think you are smart enough to change any scripture by running to a Strongs dictionary to find an 'alternative' reading, when it will help you undermine any Christian Doctrine that doesn't fit into the cultic B.I. movement.

the scorner is an abomination to men (Pr.24:9)

It was you who posted that Sargon had in fact attacked a small city when he noted that he deported 27,000 people and my post was 'disingenuous'. Isaiah 20:1 In fact,he had attacked the capital of Samaria, as is made clear by the scripture. Chapter and verse....please? I don't find Sargon attacking Samaria in any of these (10) translations. Ashdod I'm sorry....I should not have said disingenuous. Maybe instead.....uninformed would be more apropos?????

2Ki.17:

5 Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.

6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.

Although Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon 2, who seized the Assyrian throne on Shalmaneser's death late in 722, repeatedly boasts of having taken Samaria, the Bible is probably [it is-my comment] in attributing its capture to Shalmaneser. The city apparently fell in the late summer or autumn of the year 722/721. Thousands of it its citizens according to Sargon-were subsequently deported to Upper Mesopotamia and Media, there ultimately to vanish from the stage of history (The History of Israel, John Bright, 3rd edit.1981).

So, Sargon is referring the capture of Sameria, not Ashdod, in the Assyrian tablets and that is the number he gives as being deported from the Capital city, not Ashdod.

...internal decay. From 746–721, when Samaria finally fell to the Assyrians, there were six kings, the last being Hoshea, a conspirator who had assassinated the previous king. The Assyrian king Sargon II deported the leading citizens of Samaria to Persia and imported colonists from other lands to fill their places. http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-524298/Sargon-II

205. The siege of Samaria, a bequest of Shalmaneser IV. (sect. 202), was in its final stage when Sargon became king, and the city fell in the last months of 722 B.C. The flower of the nation, to the number of twenty- seven thousand two hundred and ninety persons, was deported to Mesopotamia and Media. The rest of the people were left in the wasted land, and a shuparshaku (sect. 199) was appointed to administer it as an Assyrian province. Later in the king's reign, captives from Babylonia and Syria were settled there. http://history-world.org/assyria_part_ten.htm

Once again your own poor research ablities have been exposed.

I'm sorry....you are wrong. The reason we know that the word "Elohim" refers to judges is because it is a uni-plural noun. Therefore it could not refer to The Lord God in the singular as the translators attempt to do in verse 16. Notice in verse 15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. And since we know that Ruth and her sister in law, Orpah....were Israelites, they did not worship multiple Gods! For that matter....neither did the Moabites. They only had one god also. Chemosh! [Numbers 21:29][Jeremiah 48:7,13,46]

So these biased translators use the singular in verse 16 after using the plural in verse 15.....same word. 430. 'elohiym (el-o-heem')gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

The things everyone has now learned from these verses: Elohim is a uni-plural noun and sometimes used to describe magistrates (judges). Ruth tells Naomi that she will become a Jew and thereby Naomi's Judges will be her Judges. Israel at that time....after Joshua....before Saul, was ruled by Judges (verse 1)! Elementary! The reason Ruth agrees to become a Jew is that she is either from the tribe of Gad, Rueben or Manassah. Naomi was of the tribe of Judah.....a Jew. [Joshua 1:12-15] And to the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh, spake Joshua, saying, Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, saying, The LORD your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and help them; Until the LORD have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which the LORD your God giveth them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses the LORD's servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising.

When Moses gave this land to these three tribes it was on the condition that they go across the river and help their brother tribes defeat the Canaanites. The Israelites at that time were encamped on the "Plains of Moab". This territory had been taken from the Amorites who had taken it from the Moabites. [Joshua 13:32][Numbers 21:23-31]

Now we have learned that the Moab the Israelites lived in was not the same Moab the Moabites lived in. Two separate areas and God even instructed Moses to not enter the Kingdom of Moab....but stay outside their borders [Deuteronomy 2:9] And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.

Strange....Huh? But......Moses is buried in Moab! [Deuteronomy 34:5-6] So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. The difference of course....is that Moses is buried in "Israelite Moab"....the same areas he spoke from here: [Numbers 22:1,26:3,26:63,31:12,33:48,33:49,33:50,35:1, and 36:13].

The Israelites are also shown to be in "Moab" here: [Deuteronomy 34:1,34:8 and Joshua 13:32] The Children of Israel had not disobeyed God [Deuteronomy 2:9] but were now residing in the part of Moab that they had taken from Sihon, King of the Amorites [Numbers 21:26]. He had taken this part of Moab from the King of Moab.....so you see, Israel now had their own Moab and this is where Ruth lived. She was a non-Jew Israelite living in the territory of Gad, Rueben or Manasseh [Numbers 32:33]

So.....when Naomi and family went to "Moab" because of the drought and famine [Ruth 1:1] this is the Moab they went to....."Israelite Moab".....to live with their fellow (non Jewish) Israelite brothers and sisters.

There! Now you don't have to be so ignorant of this part of Bible history anymore!

Ofcourse there is, but you do not want to accept it.

If you had any non ambiguous evidence I may be more lenient. The tribes being united after the millennial reign of Christ is nowhere mentioned, even peripherally, in the prophecies themselves.

Ofcourse there is, but you do not want to accept it.

Of course it's a future event. You are moved to place it in the future you theorize it will be. It could be well be happening now, with American and many countries of Europe supporting, overtly and covertly, the Jews.

They have already been multiplied. Nothing in Ezekiel implies that this will happen ia the end of the world as we know it, with souls taking on the incorruptible from the corruptible.

The notion is not compatible with material realities. After the first death, there are no material bodies, therefore no material circumstances such as nations and manifestation of Earthly limitations such as benefiting all nations, possible.

Have you ever asked yourself, precisely what kind of Earthly reign will Christ will have? Through men? I don't think so, unless entire paradigms governing human beings have changed. If such paradigms have changed, then Hosea and Ezekiel's prophecies, and their material orientation, are moot.

No, the Millennial reign is pretty clearly laid out in scripture in non-symbolic language. The fact is that there will be no more wars (Isa.2), nature will lose is ferocity (Isa.11), there will be perfect enviroment so that death itself will be rare (Isa.65:20), just to name a few things that are clearly stated in scripture. As for bad theology, I am sure that you even reject the doctrine of the Trinty.

No, it's not.

Hosea and Ezekiel specifically prophecy a material effect of the reuniting of Israel and Judah. You are speaking of spiritual conditions, the faithful in spiritual, incorruptible bodies, and a reign overriding material paradigms.

The only sense the prophecies makes is that they will be fulfilled in order for Christ to return.

No, I base my views on what the Bible actually says, not what I want it to say. My views are absolute truth since they can be proven by scripture and supported by history. It is you that takes the Evolutionist view of truth, that you start with the theory and then try to make the facts conform to them. Your entire theory has no substantial historical evidence and you misread scripture, wresting it to make it fit what you want it to fit.

You base your views on your, and those of your sectarian beliefs, prior accepted belief about what will happen. Nobody knows what will happen, or how this will be played out. The Jews believed the Messiah's coming would be just so, and missed the real coming of Him because that event did not conform to their beliefs. You are in the same fix.

What you and your other B.I. buddies are a bunch of Bible wresting heretics who cannot even read a simple english sentence like John 19:25. Anyone who could read that sentence in English and get four women out of it rather then 3 is almost illiterate-in English!

O.K., for the edification of all who read the above..... scratching their heads, I'll elaborate.

FTD....from another thread, held the opinion that Our Saviour had no cousins. He was wrong then and still is....and here is why.

The scriptures tell of certain women, standing on Golgotha....watching the crucifixion. Matthew says this: [Matthew 27:55-56] And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children. "Count em"! Mary, the friend; Mary, The Saviour's mother (James and Joses were his half brothers); and the mother of Zebedee's children. 1,2,& 3!

What does Mark say? [Mark 15:40-41] There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem. O.K., we have again Mary, the friend; Mary, The Saviour's mother; and Salome. From this we now know that Salome is the wife of Zebedee (see above) and the mother of James and John [Matthew 4:21-22] And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him. These are the "Sons of Thunder" (Boanerges) named by Our Saviour [Mark 3:17]. And these two are also first cousins of Our Lord and we shall see why next.

Why did Jesus ask John to care for his mother [John 19:26-27]? He was near death and His mother was evidently a young widow. He, as head of the household, would have the rights of the firstborn which would also include the responsibilities of the firstborn. Normally the next eldest son would take over these responsibilities.....but it appears from scripture that Jesus had a very tentative relationship with his four half brothers....and at least two sisters [Matthew 13:55-56]. They did not believe in him during his ministry [John 7:5] and probably came around after his resurrection [I Corinthians 15:7]. So, Our Lord was faced with the alternative of selecting a close relative, familiar with the family and one He could trust. He selects John, son of Zebedee and Salome.

Luke has nothing to say about the women at the crucifixion....other than there were "women who had followed Him from Galilee" [Luke 23:49]. [Luke 23:55-56] And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. We do know that these women are Mary Magdelene, Mary, Our Saviour's mother and Salome because [Mark 16:1] tells us that these three bought and prepared the spices.

John's gospel was written late in the first century and is the one written by the disciple that Jesus loved [John 21:20-24]. They were obviously close and "aunt Mary" would have had no problem going with John.....in his care. He mentions women at the crucifixion also except he includes one more. Remember, there were many women that had come from Galilee, and Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the event itself. Mark wrote down what Peter had told him and Luke gathered his data primarily from folks who had been there.

[John 19:25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Who would Mary's sister be? Well.....it sure wasn't Mary Magdelene, the friend and it sure wasn't Mary Clopas....now mentioned by John. It had to be Salome as all the other gospels had mentioned her previously. Well......if Salome were Mary's sister then John, her son, was Mary's nephew and the first cousin of Our Lord! John's brother, James, would also be a first cousin.

Who is Mary Clopas? It says nothing in scripture about her relationship but Hegesippus is quoted by Eusebius in his Histories [Book III, Chapter XI] and I quote, paragraph 2: "They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; To be worthy of the episcopal throne of this parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph."

If Clopas and Joseph were brothers, then Mary Clopas would be the sister in law of Mary and Joseph and the aunt (by marriage) of Our Lord. On the other hand it is quite evident that Salome is the one referred to in [John 19:25] as the sister of Mary and that is why our Lord selected His cousin John to look after his mother after he was gone. He was the next closest relative....and also loved by Our Lord.

John the Baptist is a distant cousin and we'll discuss that at another time. I'm sure that FTD will still not understand this, but I would like to hear some comments from other folks who may disagree.

I don't have to check anything since you have not stated anything that is not already known. None of those tablets say anything about the Israelites escaping from Assyria or uniting in a massive revolt against Assyria and helping their enemies fight against them. All those tablets tell is that the Israelites were there (which we knew) and about how the Assyrians administered their empire (which we knew). So, your appeal to the Assyrian tablets as revealing some great 'unknown truth' is simply smoke and mirrors. What you have to produce is evidence that the Israelites escaped from Assyria as a united 10 tribe nation and went to Western Europe and then had mass amnesia and forgot their Hebrew heritage and became the founders of the Western nations. So, once again, if you cannot produce such evidence (not conjecture), your entire theory is built on a foundation of sand.

Granted, there is no tablet that says, "The great numbers of Israelites gathered together and went to Europe." Apparently, this kind of statement is what you require.

However, there are many that talk about people that one recognizes as Israelite. I've already given you a sample of the things reported.

You didn't know how the Assyrians administered their empire. You though 27,000 deported were all the Israelites that were left in that area.

You didn't even know about the Assyrian records existed before I told you, because the histories you relied upon were written by a person who either didn't know of them or entirely ignored them.

I think I have come as close to proof with the available evidence as one can when uncovering what people did three thousand years ago.

You, on the other hand, have not presented any writing, either biblical, historical or recorded by ancient writers during the period, several of which wrote regularly about the people of the Bible, that would indicate migrations of the northern kingdom returned from Assyria and merged with the remnants of the southern kingdom residing in Palestine.

At that time, it is without a doubt such writers would consider Hosea and Ezekiel to have been fulfilled, or, at least the event would have been close enough to prophecies to record it.

I have writings, and a lot of them, at my disposal. If you would like some references to books written from the translated tablets, cylinders and prisms, I'll be happy to provide.

[I don't have to check anything since you have not stated anything that is not already known. None of those tablets say anything about the Israelites escaping from Assyria or uniting in a massive revolt against Assyria and helping their enemies fight against them. All those tablets tell is that the Israelites were there (which we knew) and about how the Assyrians administered their empire (which we knew). So, your appeal to the Assyrian tablets as revealing some great 'unknown truth' is simply smoke and mirrors. What you have to produce is evidence that the Israelites escaped from Assyria as a united 10 tribe nation and went to Western Europe and then had mass amnesia and forgot their Hebrew heritage and became the founders of the Western nations. So, once again, if you cannot produce such evidence (not conjecture), your entire theory is built on a foundation of sand.]

Granted, there is no tablet that says, "The great numbers of Israelites gathered together and went to Europe." Apparently, this kind of statement is what you require.

Or, something to that effect.

However, there are many that talk about people that one recognizes as Israelite. I've already given you a sample of the things reported.

And Israelite is a Jew, from the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-period.

They are the 12 tribes who receive their promised inheritance in the Millennium (Ezek.48)

You didn't know how the Assyrians administered their empire. You though 27,000 deported were all the Israelites that were left in that area.

I knew very well how the Assyrians administered their empire.

You B.I. guys start with the false view that you know something that everyone else doesn't.

Moreover, I never said that the 27,000 were the ones left, since I produced the Sargon inscription that stated that he had deported those 27,000.

Swinging at the straw man again!

I agreed that there were many left in the land who were not deported and these would have been in the Land when Judah returned from their Babylonian captivity.

The work that I cited, The Might That was Assyria is very detailed on the Assyrian administration, their deportations and their inner workings of their empire.

You didn't even know about the Assyrian records existed before I told you, because the histories you relied upon were written by a person who either didn't know of them or entirely ignored them.

LOL!

So, now you are forced down to the level of simply lying!

You have no records that support what you are trying to say, by your own admission.

There is not a single Assyrian record that you know of that states what you need to have stated, that millions of Israelites were in the Assyrian empire and went somewhere else.

There is not a record of that, so everything you have been posting regarding it is mere conjecture on your part, based on the unproved, unsupported premise that they did.

So, once again, you have not stated anything that any history student who took a basic history course in ancient history would not have known.

What you tried to do is get by with an unsupported conjecture to make a giant logical leap and construct an entire false and unproven theory that the Israelites had remain intact in Assyria, moved out and then in a mass amensia, became a different people, who in turn then created different nations.

That prophecy of a mass amnesia is no where in Scripture.

What is in Scripture is the Diaspora, (Deut.28:64-65), which even today is still in effect, with Jews scattered throughout the world.

I think I have come as close to proof with the available evidence as one can when uncovering what people did three thousand years ago.

LOL!

Your entire thesis would have been rejected by any college history professor teaching basic ancient history.

All that you did was restate truths that were well known and then made a giant logical leap to assume that millions of Israelites were either deported or born in Assyria and remained united as a people and then moved out of Assyria and there is no record of anything ever happening.

But you assert that contention as if you have proved the premise-which you haven't.

More strawman.

I am not contending that the Israelties migrated anywhere.

Nor, do the historians.

The contention that you have to deal with is assimilation not migration.

We do state that those left in the land after the deportations were there when the Southern tribes returned.

We know that there were many Israelites left in the land after the deportation (2Chr.31:6-and concerning the children of Israel and Judah that dwelt in the cities of Judah...)

At that time, it is without a doubt such writers would consider Hosea and Ezekiel to have been fulfilled, or, at least the event would have been close enough to prophecies to record it.

No one considered those prophecies fulfilled since the Messiah hadn't come.

For the prophecies to be fulfilled the Millennial Kingdom has to occur first, that was what the Apostles were asking about when the Lord ascended (Acts 1)

I have writings, and a lot of them, at my disposal. If you would like some references to books written from the translated tablets, cylinders and prisms, I'll be happy to provide.

Thank you.

I have acess as well to the Assyrian records.

Now, if you can provide a record that shows that there was a massive movement by the Israelites, please do so.

There is, by your own admission, no such record.

There is no scriptural prophecy that states that the Israelites would lose their memory.

The Southern tribes did not lose theirs.

To sum up, your entire thesis is based on nothing but conjecture and myth.

Now, we who believe that the 12 tribes are still in existence as Jews, do not have prove any mass movement (as you think we do)

We believe that there were Israelites in the land after the deportation.

We believe some of the Israelites who were deported did return as well.

We see Jews from the lands of the Medes, where the 10 tribes were deported mentioned in Acts 2.

We see the House of Israel mentioned by both the Lord and Peter.

There is nothing that you posted regarding the Assyrians that is not taught on the basic level in college.

I have seen the translated records of the Assyrians that talk about their collapse and nothing is spoken of about the 10 tribes as a group of people.

So, your entire theory is simply based on putting forth straw man arguments, mixed with question begging and circular reasoning.

Not a single historical or Biblical fact support your thesis that the Israelites went anywhere as a group, forgot who they were, and became another people else forming nations of Western Europe.

Paul sends his greetings to three groups of people in 1Cor.10, the Jew, the Gentile and the Church.

He doesn't make mention of the Israelites because he regards them as Jews.

So, once again, the entire B.I. thesis is nothing but a fabrication constructed on straw man, question begging, circular reasoning and devoid of any real evidence of what needs to be proven, that millions of Israelites moved anywhere as a people and became someone else.

The final straw in the B.I. quiver is the appeal to philogy, which has also shown to be unsupportable as well.

[She was a Moabite and your anti-Christian B.I. lies cannot change that reality, even with your lame attempts at twisting the scripture!]

You know....this is why I quit answering your posts some time ago. You can disagree with me all you want. Show me the scripture. You cannot ever seem to do that (previous post). You can call me most anything you want, but I am not a liar and I am beginning to really resent your accusations. It seems that when you run out of material you resort to calling your opponents liars. You've done it to me....you've done it to William....and you've done it to others. This is the last time to me. I'm done with you!

And it is alright for you to call me 'disingenuous'.

You seem to think that you and your B.I. cult can come on these threads and attack the fundamental belief's of Christianity with impunity.

You have this smug attitude that you guys have the truth and everyone else is wrong and then go about trying to prove it by ignoring any scripture that contradicts what you believe with an appeal to another word in Strong's (all of the translators are wrong) or simply brushing it aside with a flippant 'that is your interpretation'.

Yet, for all your hubris, you and your group cannot even read basic English or follow a logical thought without committing such logical fallacies, as 'straw man' 'question begging' and 'circular reasoning'.

I will not post to you again.

But I will post to you, that is for certain.

Anytime you attack the word of God with your anti-Christian and antisemitic posts, if I see it, you will be taken to task for it.

You guys wanted to hide what you really believed regarding the B.I. view on the Western nations, but were 'outed' and now we know that you think that you are the Israelites, which you aren't, nor are you Christians, since you reject the Trinity.

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.