Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church

Well.....you got a good scripture chapter but you got the wrong King! [II Kings 17:3-6] Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents. And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. 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. Sargon was King after Shalmaneser and is only mentioned here: [Isaiah 20:1] In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it. Ashdod was a coastal community and not Samaria!

Yes, and the extra historical records show that it is Sargon who claims credit for the final conquest of Samaria, not Shalmanser

That is not stated in the Bible.

That is further historical evidence.

The Bible also alludes to later operations by Sargon in the coastal areas of South Palestine (Is.20:1-6)(The Might That Was Assyria, p.93).

So, what Sargon was clearly referencing in his inscription was the fall of Samaria, not Ashdod.

Now, it is possible that Shalmanser did take the city and Sargon simply took credit for it (he was probably the general in charge) or Shalmanser died during the 3 year operation and was replaced by Sargon.

You will note that Shalmanser's name is not rementioned again in those passages, only 'the King of Assyria' who could have been Sargon and not Shalmanser.

So, what stands is the fact that the Sargon inscription is very clear in that it is referring to Samaria and not Ashdod.

Your inability to read English and your ignornace of history have led you to yet another false conclusion.

721 posted on 09/08/2007 7:16:02 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

To: fortheDeclaration

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.

I'll post to you.

I did notice that you did not respond to the scriptural evidence put forth by diego. Let me reproduce it here:

BEGIN DIEGO POST

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.

END DIEGO POST

So how did you answer this?

722 posted on 09/08/2007 8:08:54 AM PDT by DouglasKC

[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.

Well, you start out with a lie-nice going!

I never said that the Lord had no cousins.

I said that John the Baptist was a cousin, but not John the Apostle.

And you wonder why I call you a liar!

Typical M.O. of the B.I. cult.

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.

Well, as usual you say alot but do not prove your theory.

What is stated in the Gospel accounts are 3 women mentioned, but that doesn't mean only 3 were present!

Now, in John 19:25 you make the assumption that (1) Mary Cleopas was not Mary's (the mother of Jesus) sister, when that is what the passage says.

(2) Then you assume that because Salome is mentioned in the other two accounts, she must be mentioned in the account on John as well.

Thus, you reject the clear English, that states that there are three women being mentioned in John, Mary Magdaline, Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary, the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Salome is not mentioned.

So, rejecting the clear reading of the English and following your own flawed reasoning, you come to an wrong conclusion, that John the Apostle was the cousin of the Lord.

So, both your reasoning and reading abilities have been exposed as being sub-par.

No one reading that sentence in John 19:25 would read four women in it and pass a 6th grade English test.

25 ¶ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cle'ophas, and Mary Mag'dalene.

(1) His Mother

(2)and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas

(3) and Mary Magdalene.

The 'ands' tell us that there are two additional people being mentioned, not three!

But because you have more faith in your own flawed reasoning ability, you reject what the Scripture clearly states, that there are three women being mentioned in John, (not four) and that those women include Mary's own sister, which we had not heard of before.

But since that is beyond your own reasoning, you simply reject that and would rather misread a simple English sentence.

When I began this long series of posts to you, I began with the statement that you could not even read a simple English sentence, no less make pronouncements on the Hebrew and Greek translations!

And this passage confirms that view.

Let any English reader come and defend the notion that there are four women being mentioned in John 19:25.

The ands tell you how many proper nouns are being identified.

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.

Well, well!

Yes, that is quite possible, since a 'sister-n-law' would be regarded as a 'sister'

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.

Oh, Diego, you were so close to the truth!

But your own inflated ego stood in the way.

You even quote historical resources that support my view but then just go on to misread the passage.

John the Apostle was not a cousin of the Lord, and it cannot certainly be proved by that verse!

Three women are mentioned in John 19:25, not four!

Mary Cleopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Salome is simply not mentioned in that passage.

So, once again you have proven by your own appeal to Eusbius that Mary Cleopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

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.

Never disagreed with the fact that John the Baptist was at least a distant cousin of the Lord

Stop posting straw men arguments.

Yes, and if anyone can show from the English reading in John 19:25 that four women are being spoken off, and not three, please do so.

We already know that there are some who rather be considered basically illiterate then admit that their reasoning is wrong.

And nice try at trying to appear to be 'orthodox' by lying, saying that I deny that John the Baptist was the cousin of the Lord.

Espically since you and the other B.I. guys reject essentially every Fundamental Christian doctrine, including the Trinity.

723 posted on 09/08/2007 8:22:35 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

[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.]

I'll post to you. I did notice that you did not respond to the scriptural evidence put forth by diego. Let me reproduce it here: BEGIN DIEGO POST 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,(emphasis added) 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.(emphasis added) (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:(emphasis added) 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. END DIEGO POST So how did you answer this?

And it is clear that your reading abilities are as poor as the rest of the B.I. defenders.

I did in fact, respond to what Diego stated.

You will note that the issue in those posts regarding foreign women is that they kept their own gods, and thus, turned the men of Israel away from the true God.

Hence, those passages do not support the view that no marriage to foreign woman was allowed, only those who rejected the true God of Israel.

When I posted back to Diego, I made that same point, highlighting those words in those passages that emphasize the fact of bringing abmoninations into the land of Israel.

Now, Joseph married an Egyptian woman as well, did he not?

Why was it alright for him to do so and not Boaz?

You guys are very selective in your verse selection.

So, rather then understanding the fact that it was the issue of foreign women who rejected the God of Israel that was the issue and not foreign women per se, you and Diego would rather misread what Ruth clearly says by going through verbal gymnastics.

As for the forbidding of any Moabite in the Congregation, I did cite a commentary (JFB) that stated that many theologicans believe that prohibtion refers to only men(Moabites) and not women.

So, go back and actually read what I wrote.

The B.I. views on the subject are shortsighted which come from not reading what those passages are saying about why foreign women were forbidden.

By receiving the God of Israel, Ruth became part of the Hebrew Covenant as well, and that is why she is in the genealogy of the Lord.

724 posted on 09/08/2007 8:56:04 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

To: fortheDeclaration; Diego1618

And it is clear that your reading abilities are as poor as the rest of the B.I. defenders.

I'm only sure about my reading abilities. They're not perfect, but I wouldn't classify them as "poor".

You will note that the issue in those posts regarding foreign women is that they kept their own gods, and thus, turned the men of Israel away from the true God.

Maybe, but according to the bible God forbid Moabites for no such reason, but for another:

Now, Joseph married an Egyptian woman as well, did he not? Why was it alright for him to do so and not Boaz?

God didn't forbid Egyptians. Just the opposite:

Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

So, rather then understanding the fact that it was the issue of foreign women who rejected the God of Israel that was the issue and not foreign women per se, you and Diego would rather misread what Ruth clearly says by going through verbal gymnastics.

Only according to you. You have no point, biblically.

725 posted on 09/08/2007 9:13:29 AM PDT by DouglasKC

To: William Terrell

[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.

It is clearly stated in Ezek. 48 where they are mentioned by name.

[ 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.

Well, it is a future event, but it is for those who are from the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the Gentiles.

Those who support the Jew today are Gentiles, not Israelites.

[ 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.

And who said that at the end of the world everyone takes on incorruptible bodies?

There will be two groups of people, those in incorruptible bodies and those in normal bodies who need the trees of healing (Rev.22), to stay healthy and alive.

Death does not end until the end of the Millennial reign.

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.

Oh, cut it out!

The Millennium occurs first,then Satan is released for a short period to lead yet another rebellion, which is put down by God the Father.

After that comes the Great White Throne Judgment, where the unbelievers are cast into the Lake of Fire and then the eternal state begins with both Resurrected and flesh and blood people in the recreated Universe,but no more sin or death is present.

It is all laid out very clearly in Rev.20-22.

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.

You are really a very confused person.

With Christ ruling on Earth, the entire environment will change (Is.11, 65-66), there will be no more wars (Joel2), there will be perfect justice and peace.

[ 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 environment 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 Trinity. ]

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

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.

Yes they are speaking of a material effect, a literal reuniting of all 12 tribes.

I am not speaking of a spiritual condition at all.

So once again your ignorance of differing views of theology have led to you to construct a 'straw man' argument.

You are confusing my views with that of a amillennalist (no millennial reign).

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

Well, that is the Postmillennial view, but that is also false.

The world is not getting better, it is clearly getting worse

[ 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.

No, actually the reason that many of the Jews rejected the coming of their Messiah was because they rejected what the scriptures said regarding it, and instead of believing what was said in the scriptures, they made up their own man made theology based on what they wanted to believe.

Christ rebuked them for this (Mk.7-7-9,Lk.24:25-27)

So, your views are wrong since they stem from a basic misunderstanding of the Premillennial view and a misreading of scripture.

726 posted on 09/08/2007 9:26:13 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

[And it is clear that your reading abilities are as poor as the rest of the B.I. defenders.]

I'm only sure about my reading abilities. They're not perfect, but I wouldn't classify them as "poor".

Well, if you think those scriptures haven't been addressed they are.

[ You will note that the issue in those posts regarding foreign women is that they kept their own gods, and thus, turned the men of Israel away from the true God. ]

Maybe, but according to the bible God forbid Moabites for no such reason, but for another: Deu 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 forever: Deu 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

See, your reading ability is poor.

That passage refer to the forbidding of the entrance of the Moabites into the Congregation of the Lord, not the marriage of them.

Now, since the word Moabite is used, it is clear that it was the men who were the ones forbidden to enter into the Congregation, not the women.

After all, it was the men who were responsible for the acts against the Hebrews, not the women.

[ Now, Joseph married an Egyptian woman as well, did he not? Why was it alright for him to do so and not Boaz? ]

God didn't forbid Egyptians. Just the opposite: Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

First, that is not dealing with marriage, now is it?

It is dealing with hospitality.

Second, The Egyptians are mentioned in Ezr.9:1 with the other foreign nations regarding marriage and foreign gods.

So, you can't even read your own posts!

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 Per'izzites, the Jeb'usites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

[ So, rather then understanding the fact that it was the issue of foreign women who rejected the God of Israel that was the issue and not foreign women per se, you and Diego would rather misread what Ruth clearly says by going through verbal gymnastics. ]

Only according to you. You have no point, biblically.

Actually, you yourself admitted to my comment regarding foreign women and their false gods' maybe so, amd it so to anyone who can read either English or Hebrew.

There is no way that Ruth is referring to 'Judges' in Ruth 1:16-17.

The word 'Moabitess' means a woman from the people of Moab, not someone born in that land.

(2Chron.24: 26 And these are they that conspired against him; Zabad the son of Shim'e-ath an Ammonitess, and Jehoz'abad the son of Shimrith a Moabitess.

727 posted on 09/08/2007 9:45:39 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

To: fortheDeclaration

I consider imposing an interpretation on a biblical passage because that interpretation supports held beliefs, and no other reason.

Peter addresses the House of Israel because it is there, present at the feast, composing members from all 10 tribes, as well as the house of Judah, which composes the other 2, so members from all 12 tribes are present in the land.

Peter obviously is referring to Israel in this passage. . .

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

To clarify, here another passage you didn't mention. . .

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

I don't think anything more need be said.

Well, when it refers to the house of Israel, it always refers to the 10 tribes after the division. So once again, you show that you do not know what you are talking about.

That's what I said, wasn't? You can't comprehend the House of Judah by referring to the House of Israel, therefore the two houses were not combined, as you believe.

Individuals from every tribe were in Israel as the time of Christ, how they got there, either by returning or having been left there is irrelevant.

Cite where members of every tribe of Israel were in Palestine during Christ. You've cited one, and keep using it over and over.

Something about that verse you do not understand?

2Chron. 34, 9 And when they came to Hilkiah the high priest, they delivered the money that was brought into the house of God, which the Levites that kept the doors had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin; and they returned to Jerusalem.

Chronicles wasn't written during the appearance of Christ, or even sufficiently before. It dated from Adam to 539 BC. this is supposed to prove what?

Those are tribes from the Northern Kingdom listed after the deportation by the Assyrians.

And the deportation of the Assyrians were to various cities of the Medes, where those tribes languished over a century.

But, I'm talking about a specific recording. If Hosea had been fulfilled in New Testament time, don't you think it would have been written about?

Why do you waste my time?

That is because they aren't. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are indeed the 'real' Israelites and have forgotten.

Obviously, they have.

You seem to have some problem with finding some ancient writing that records the return of Israel to Palestine in all their numbers. You must, because that leaves 6 centuries for the seed of Abraham to spread out among Europe and the entire middle east, and the world, setting the stage for Hosea, without making God raise up stones to combine with the vanishing remnant of Judah.

And you are missing what the Bible says, that the House of Israel was in Israel when Christ was there. The House of Israel and the House of Judah were both present in the land at the time of Christ. And you have no writings stating that Israelites went anywhere as a people, they either went back to the land or assimilated into the surrounding culture. And you cannot prove anything different.

You make these statement, like, by your saying it, makes it true.

Actually you said they must have assimilated with the cultures among which they found themselves, when you were being pressure to present evidence of Israel in Palestine.

The evidence that is available to you indicates the Israel split up. Some remained as troublemakers in the old Assyria and some went to other places, like Europe.

For the life of me I can't see why this so objectionable to you. You have no unambiguous evidence on your side. You are in the silly position of having to limit the disposition of all of Israel to returning to Palestine between 612 BC and the birth of Christ.

You haven't revealed any text at all indicating that Israel did that. And if you can't do that, then it has to be presumed that after almost 3 millennia, Abraham's seed has pretty much populated the world, whether from Europe or elsewhere.

What ever in the world is your problem with that?

And let me make this as clear as possible to your befuddled mind, there is no 'Judah' there are only Jews, which are composed of individuals of all 12 tribes, not just the Southern Kingdom.

That is your theory unsupported by anything. Show me some record of Israel having returned to Judah in Palestine in all its numbers.

Ofcourse I know the nature of it, it is clearly stated in Scripture. It will happen when the Church is removed and the world goes through the Tribulation, as stated very clearly by the Lord in Matthew 24. After that there will be 1,000 years of perfect environment in which Christ will rule from Jerusalem and all 12 tribes will be represented and have an inheritance, since Christ is the King of the Jews.

It is not clearly stated in the scripture. All of it in all prophecies, like, revelation, is entirely in symbolism. As I have said, you, or anyone else, knows what those symbols actually represent in the material world.

Lordy, how many times has this Matthew cite been effectively argued against on just this thread.

All of this is a theory that you just happen to believe. Numerous others, probably a majority, do repeatedly beg to differ.

No, I cited very clear passages in Ezekiel that you just choose to ignore because you are 'wise in your conceits' and 'high and heady minded'

You posted Ezekiel but I didn't see where you made your case. There is no mention of the millennial reign of Christ there, nor the reunited nation of Israel choosing Christ as their head.

All of that is what you add to it.

Israel did return to Israel as individuals. See 2Chronicles above. Christ and Peter both mention the 'house of Israel' being present and that term is only used for the Northern Kingdom after the split in 1Ki.12. So, what you want proven is that the 10 tribes returned as tribes, but those tribes were present in the land after the deportation by the Assyrians as shown by 2Chronicles 34. Now, what you have to show is that those deported tribes went somewhere and you can't, so stop talking like you can.

We have already discussed Israel returning as "individuals" or returning as a "kingdom". The notion of a difference is asinine, and appears to be desperate.

Chronicles, as noted, did not prove anything.

Christ and Peter noted by implication that the House of Israel was elsewhere.

Deportation, again, was in the initial capturing of Israel, therefore had nothing to do with where Israel finally ended up.

There is evidence from the Assyrians themselves that some of Israel occupied parts of old Assyria and some left headed north.

This is contrasted with a total lack of writing recording the northern kingdom's return to Palestine before or during the birth of Christ, as such an event would have been recorded, if not scripturally then by ancient writers who had an interest in those kinds of events.

Already shown it by the scriptures, the term House of Israel being used and the tribes mentioned in 2Chronciles by name. You only reject the evidence because it doesn't fit your warped theory.

All you have shown me is a single passages that does not deal with the time period we are discussing.

You have cited nothing that proves your case. There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states that those tribes went anywhere as tribes. We know that Jews were in Turkey and all of the Mideast, Asia Minor and Europe. That was the curse of their Diaspora, to be scattered throughout the world. They did not forget they were Hebrews.

Keep saying saying that with no backup to prove your words. You didn't even know there were Assyrian writings, so I can't expect you to believe what they say.

Certainly Jews were spotted here and there among the indigenous population. It is the indigenous population we're discussing, who had 6 centuries to become indigenous. With records that indicated numbers of Israel, free from Assyria, headed that way.

Obviously the seed of Abraham forgot they were Hebrew. How many acknowledge it today? How many acknowledged it then? Whether parts of Israel stayed in the lands of defeated Assyria and parts migrated to Europe, the bloodline of Abraham endured, and they didn't know it then, nor do they now.

And you show me some work that states that the 10 tribes went somewhere as 10 tribes. Those individuals from those tribes were left in the land by Assyria went back into Israel and blended with the other 2 tribes. They will be reunited as a Kingdom in the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ and not before.

You keep making these flat statements, then no backing them up.

I already have, what evidence that can possibly be presented nearly three millennia after the fact. You haven't show me any hard evidence, or even unambiguous implication.

I have the evidence of it from scripture, that one of the promises made by God that He would multiply the House of Israel during the Millennium.

Ezek. 36, 10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: 11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men.

Huh? Where is there any millennial reign of Christ in this?

Not according to the Scriptures which states that one of the benefits that God brings to the house of Israel is the ending of the heathen nations 'bereaving the [house of Israel]' of men'(vs.12) So where does 'your sand of the sea' argument hold up if the heathen are accused of bereaving the house of Israel of men? It doesn't. The House of Israel will become as the sand of the sea during the Millennial reign, not before.

This only assuming that the seed of Abraham, Israel, is not already the sands of the see, now. And it certainly is "'bereaving the [house of Israel]' of men'(vs.12)". And God can end it.

I mention this to show that your arguments are ambiguous, that is to say, they admit to several equally reasonable interpretations.

None of God's promise requires the millennial reign of Christ to fulfill it. That is just your theory.

You flatly state at that reign and not before. Like you know, and there is no way you can, possibly. There is no way I can either, so I use how God brings His works into the world through material means.

You must rely on metaphysics and symbols which you have no idea what they mean.

Nothing you have cited has proven anything that you contend regarding the moving of the 10 tribes. You have cited tablets that have stated what is already well known, that the 10 tribes were in the northern part of Assyria. Not a single shred of evidence that those tribes moved anywhere as tribes-so stop pretending that you did. You only reveal the fact that you are a fraud.

I reproduced this in amusement. It is simply a contentless fit on the floor. You waste my time with this.

Oh, I read them, and you say nothing in them that is worth any consideration. There is no a major history on Assyria that would state those 10 tribes left Assyria intact and went into Western Europe. And you know it,but you keep spreading your myths and fables.

You know, I rarely say this, but I don't believe you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see much evidence of it. You seem to rely on techniques to hold your position.

And if they had robes, so what? Once again, more hot air and nonsense.

Israelite garb, seen among peoples fleeing the Assyrian meltdown going north? So what?

So? And there were people moving all over the place. What you have to prove is that those people were the Israelites who then moved into Western Europe and forgot who they were. Nothing in those plates indicate that.

There are writings and scratched images on tablets that indicate, but after almost 3 millennia, there is nothing to absolutely prove it.

There is where the notion of Israelite bloodlines being spread all over the world, including Europe become prima facie, where you have to overcome the presumption with greater evidence, and you haven't.

You can't even cite an ancient writer that records such an event like the northern kingdom returning to Palestine.

The 10 deported tribes either assimilated or moved back into the land on an individual basis. There is no historical evidence of them moving together out of Assyria and into Europe-and then forgetting that they were Hebrews-and you know it!

There is written evidence that supports all but returning to Palestine (your assumption), assimilating and migrating elsewhere but not to Palestine, which lends credence to Israel being the sands of the sea.

And the present Jews not being all that's left of Abraham's bloodline. That's the problem you really have isn't it? I can see how you, being Jewish, you would have a problem with that; it takes away some conceptual tools of security and protection.

No need for an 'escape', when Assyria fell, the captives fell under Bablyonian captivity and when they fell to the Medes, they were under their control. Moreover, when the Jews went back to Israel, they would have taken back members from those tribes as shown in Ezra who could not state their own genealogy due to the loss of their records. The Southern tribes still had their genealogical records but would lose them in the Fall of Jerusalem.

The Assyrians held Israel "captive". That necessitates an "escape".

Didn't you read in the scriptures that the Assyrians placed the northern kingdom in and among the Medes?

You keep making these statements and providing no backup. These are theories, like the one I'm arguing in favor of.

At least I debate with that understanding. There is no way possible you can know what you say you "know", and what evidence you present is loosely ambiguous, interpreted, among other reasonable interpretations, to conform to your, and your sect's, previously held beliefs.

Oh, stop your nonsense! You have not posted a single record showing any mass exodus by the 10 tribes out of Assyria. And there is not a major history of Assyria that would support your fabrication of the truth.

Well? Do you want the titles of some books written by people who have studied the Assyrian tablets with an eye to Israel, or not?

There is evidence that the house of Israel was present in Israel at the time of Christ. And your appeal to the Assyrian records is bogus, since no Assyrian record shows that those tribes went anywhere as the 10 tribes. The entire B.I. theory is built on a lies.

Gasp. Lies, lies, lies.

Show me some ancient writings that record the return of the northern kingdom to merge with Judah.

There is not a single Assyrian plate that shows any mass exodus by the 10 tribes and you know it.

Now, regardless of the books written from study of the Assyrian records, you probably are not so rockheaded to think many of those record weren't about the northern kingdom? Right?

And, you're right, there is no plate that says, "There was a mass exodus of the previously held northern kingdom of Israel northward to Europe (or whatever the Assyrians called that region)."

But there are writings that place peoples in Israelite clothing on that vector. And that's as close as anyone get to such ancient events.

On the other hand, you have provided no written evidence whatsoever that records, or even indicates a mass return of the northern kingdom to Palestine at any time.

And you have nothing to prove anything for your idiotic theory. Those tribes did not leave Assyria as unified tribes and there is not a single Assyrian plate that shows that they did-and you know it. So stop spreading lies.

I have access to more evidence for the position I'm arguing than you do for your's. All you have, at the end of the day, is a consensus of like believers.

I have presented evidence, and logical conclusions, on these many posts, and you have not effectively (to my viewpoint) refuted them (that is to say, I've been able to refute what you have posted as off point or not applicable).

Most of what you do, if one were to isolate the sum total of your sentences, is simply repeat what you believe. As if repetition creates reality, like some liberal.

The effect of the 6 centuries was the assimilation of those 10 tribes into the surrounding culture, not them moving into Western Europe, a theory that you have yet to prove as a fact.

But 6 centuries is certainly feasible to migrating north to the European region. Especially when there are writings that spot such migrations with description of clothing, and Turkey is about a months march from where the Israelite were on the northern border of Assyria.

This not even to mentinon the plethora of myths and legends of ancient Europe is in line with Israelite names, language and customs. But that seems to be your real problem, isn't it? It's something about European types having the bloodline of Abraham. I admit I'm stumped as to why.

You keep requiring literal words describing exactly the event or you will reject all. This is not reasonable.

No, I never said that those low numbers were all that was left. What I said that it certainly was not millions deported, as you were contending. Whatever numbers were deported were relatively small and enough people were left to move to repopulate and remain viable as the 'house of Israel' which were in the land in the time of Christ. So, you have contradicted your own contention that it was necessary for the tribes to remain intact in Assyria or else prophecy couldn't be fulfilled. Even if those deported did not come back, there were still enough remaining from the 10 tribes in the land to keep those tribes alive, as they are today, and mingled together as Jews.

You require low numbers because your theory can't deal with large numbers of Israelites returning to Palestine; it upsets the know known demographics of the regions.

As I've shown very clearly, with written Assyrian policies, that only minorities of the northern kingdom areas under siege were deported, as active dissidents, to other areas, and receiving other deported dissidents in those areas to stabilize land values, and work the land for tribute. That cannot be in dispute. It is recorded. <> Do you not read my posts? The majority of population of any northern kingdom areas were kept to work the land and pay tribute.

This was about 25 years, focused around the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, in 745 BC, who died in 725 BC. The Sargon dispersed the tribes, the vast majority of all their numbers left alive. God gave them over for their sins, grazzie?

What you cite was before the general dispersement of the northern kingdom to areas of the Medians, by Sargon, as noted. Gosh, I get so frustrated having to repeat known facts. Is this one of your techniques?

You keep saying "as Jews". You have yet to give any evidence at all of that. And I don't require exactly wording, just unambiguous writing, that is, something that can't be interpreted otherwise, not necessarily in those words.

No, it is clear you do have a hard time with English. What I was saying is that those tribes remained in the land, so that even after the deportation, there were members of each tribe in the land.

They remained in the land, in all their numbers (you had previously said that they were wiped out so that only a small number remained) working the land for tribute around 745 to 721 until, in 721 they were packed up by Sargon and spread among the Medians. How many times do I have to say this?

This means the vast majority of Israel survived to remain vast numbers when Assyria fell. What about this don't you understand? It comes from historical evidence and writings.

So, your view that the tribes of the deportation have to be somewhere or else prophecy is overthrown is a false one. Those people who were deported could have become assimilated with the culture and lost their identify as Hebrews and yet, all of the 12 tribes still existed since the members of the 10 tribes were in the Land.

Your meaning here escapes me, but assimilated people tend, over time, lose their identities. There were vast numbers of the northern kingdom left for the Assyrian capture and those same numbers + after Assyria fell. There are records of Israelites that settled and for Israelites that left going north. Then we have 6 centuries to populate and assimilate.

The point is that much of the world's population is evidentially of the bloodline of Abraham, including the European region. And they certainly don't know who they are.

Could some of the deportees have returned to the land-yes, as individuals, but not as tribes, since they had lost their proof of who they were.

Ah, lost proof. How about lost identity, but they would, from your view, have to retain identity because they would have to have that to return to Judah in Palestine.

The distinction between an political aggregate abstract term and the people that compose that term continues to escape me.

So, your entire 'logical' view that the 10 deported tribes must have remained intact and become some other people in order for prophecy to be fulfilled is overthrown.

Doesn't appear to be overthrown. You keep ignoring the centuries of time in which the events occur. The evidence leads logically that their blood runs through the greater part of the world's peoples, making Israel the sands of the sea right now.

Where is the record of the House of Israel going anywhere else as a body-there is none. And there is no 'numbers' problem except in your own distorted thinking. God doesn't need any particular number, all He needs is all of the tribes to remain in existence. The tribe of Benjamin once got down to only 600 men. More 'question begging' and 'circular reasoning' on your part.

Israel didn't go anywhere "as a body". Some stayed and gave the Assyrians trouble. Some migrated north. They did not return to Palestine and merge with Judah, and are comprehended in the low number of the Jews. Their bloodline is now spread all over the world.

I presume that Hosea is God's prophet and Hosea is in to numbers.

There were no 'great' numbers. You have yourself stated that only the trouble makers were deported, not everyone! And those same Medes show up in Acts 2! Don't you read your own posts!

Only the troublemakers were deported. The rest of the population of that area stayed there.

There were ten tribes in Israel (and only two in Judah). No appreciably hight death rate was sustained by all the areas occupied by the northern kingdom; God gave them over. The Assyrians needed the population to work the land.

You do the numbers.

Yes, and obviously, they did not flee as a group to Western Europe.

It is not necessary for them to flee as a group to Europe (not just western Europe), just a good enough number to allow 6 centuries for them to populate the land. You can make a lot of babies in 6 centuries.

Whereas, there is nothing to suggest that any number at all went to Palestine and merged with Judah there.

And those that left, did not go into Western Europe and forget who they were. Nothing in those tablets suggest that.

There is only the reported direction of travel. Considering how close to Europe they already were. . .

All those tablets suggest is that people were uprising and there were movement within the Assyrian Empire, not that the 10 tribes had stayed a united kingdom and fought against Assyria and left to move into Western Europe.

They did not have to remain a united kingdom, all they had to do is spread the bloodline, which is in Europe. It is silly to suggest it isn't, which is the point to begin with, with which you have a problem. We have people, we have a vector and we have centuries to do the deed.

Whereas we have no vector at all toward Palestine.

I don't need any! All I need is people from those tribes in the Land, which they were. It doesn't matter if none of the deportees ever made it back, since by your own admission, many Israelites were left in the land when the Assryians deported the 'malcontents'. So, as 2Chroncicles clearly shows, those tribes were in the Land after the Assyrian deportation. The return of the deportees is not necessary for prophecy to be fulfilled. God warned those fled from the South, not to go into Egypt because they would not return, and they didn't.

You need something. Piling all those Israelites on Judah in Palestine would screw up the demographics already recorded for that time.

But all you have is one cite of one gal that belonged to another tribe than Judah, Levi or Benjamin, which came from some who joined Judah when the Assyrians placed Israel under siege. They were already there when Neb rounded Judah up.

Then, after T-p II's death Sargon moved them all to be dispersed among the Medians. My mention of those left after the deportees was to make my point that Israel retained numbers, which you claimed previously they didn't.

And, As I showed, Chronicles did not cover the necessary period.

What is necessary for the prophecy to be fulfilled is lots and lots of Abraham's bloodline, and we have that assumption.

I mentioned nothing about Egypt.

And you have no sense of history, prophecy, logic or truth. The children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not just Abraham, who had other children), are Jews and are known as such today. There is no record of them migrating to Europe as the 10 tribes. They entered Europe as Jews and that is what they were known as.

You keep saying that and I keep giving you information.

I have some record, about as good for events 3 millenia ago as it gets. You have no record at all that Israel returned and merged with Judah.

That 'sand of the sea' is for the future, not today. The Hebrews are dispersed throughout the world as was prophesied to them in Deut.38.

You have show nothing to indicate it will happen only after the millennial reign of Christ. Obviously, it will happen in the future because it hasn't happened yet.

I agree "Hebrew" included both Israel and Judah. Israel includes both Israel and Judah. "Jew" was coined to refer to Judah only, and no other. The House of Israel has never been used to refer to both Israel and Judah. There is no record at all anywhere to mentions Israel returning from Assyria to merge with Judah.

If there is, cite it. The event would certainly have captured the attention of the writers of the day; plenty of other events concerning Judah certainly did.

Well, then those plates don't support what you are saying, they state that the Hebrews well remembered who they were. So once again you are appealing to evidence that doesn't support your thesis. You are asserting what you need to prove. And then you just jump to to Europe as if you have proven that those 10 tribes were there-and they weren't. So your talk about 'bloodlines' is beside the point, since the 10 tribes never moved into Western Europe as the 10 tribes. They were in Western Europe as Jews, part of the Diaspora.

I don't doubt there were some that kept the remnants of the old ways; population always do, but God put them on ice.

The original point here is that there are plenty of Abraham's seed to fulfill Hosea, instead of all remaining being part of rapidly vanishing Judah.

It didn't matter if people moved as tribes or not, bloodlines comes from people. A "tribe" or "kingdom" is an abstract term; it doesn't have blood.

And all this blood certainly didn't go to Palestine after Assyria.

Ofcourse I am reading your posts and you have not provided a shred of real evidence to support the thesis that the Israelites moved into Western Europe.

Well, yous answers don't seen to indicate you read my posts, or did understand what I posted (reading and comprehension in included in the word "read"). Most of the time you endlessly repeat your beliefs.

Well, we know the Levites were there. We know that Anna from the tribe of Asher was there as well. We know that the 'house of Israel' was there, since the Lord went to it and Peter stated they had crucified the Lord. Now, anytime the House of Israel shows up after 1Ki.12, it refers to the Northern Kingdom of 10 tribes.

Certainly the Levites were there; they were teachers and priests distributed among all the tribes.

There's that gal again. Do you have any other people? If Israel returned (10 tribes merged with 2) you have have endless mentions of other tribes.

We know that the House of Israel survived and existed somewhere, but not in Judah's domain.

Hey-according to your own statements, they didn't have to 'return' they had remained in the land after the deportation by Assyria.

I said some had remained in the lands occupied by Assyria.

There were those who had remained in the land when the Babylonians deported the Southern tribe as well. Yes, and. . .?

So, we do not need to worry about the deportees, we had those who had remained in the Land after the deportation and thus, the tribes were all present when the Lord was born.

This a conclusion that, to me, means you didn't read my posts.

And a false theory is one that has no facts. Your theory is false since it is not supported by the Bible, history, or logic. The facts are that all 12 tribes were in Israel at the birth of Christ and were known collectively as Jews, as they are today.

Which would be yours, having no record of Israel returning to Palestine.

I think I have shown the position I'm arguing is supported by all three.

And as the Son of David, He is the King over all of the Tribes of Israel-all else prophecy would not be fufilled (Psa.89).

And the point is, everybody.

728 posted on 09/08/2007 1:24:57 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)

Am I correct in summarizing that Ruth was a racial Israelite who did not worship God or that actually practiced pagan beliefs as indicated here?

Hi Doug....long time....no see.

I'm not sure how much of a believer Ruth was or not. I do know that Samuel recorded her using the word Jehova in [Ruth 1:17] which was the name of God known by the Israelites only. Even Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know this name of God [Exodus 6:3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. It would be strange for her to use the word Elohim in verse 16 and then use the word Jehova in the very next breath.....meaning the same thing as some believe.

The reference to "The Lord God of Israel...under whose wings art come to trust" [Ruth 2:12] Is a similar phrase used by King David. {Psalm 63:7] Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice. I believe this may have been a common metaphor.

Verse 10 and 11 would not indicate to me anything other than someone new to the area....and showing great respect for the inhabitants thereof.

The things we know for sure are this: There was a Moab controlled by the Israelites for at least 700 years. There was also a Kingdom of Moab....inhabited by Moabites. There were no Moabites in "The Plains of Moab" [Numbers 21:23-31] but there were Israelites inhabiting this area [Joshua 12:1-6]. Three tribes, either Gad, Rueben or Manasseh would have been the likely tribe of Ruth. Ruth was called a Moabitess woman the same way your wife would be called a Michigan woman. The word, Michigan is of Native American derivation.....and I'm willing to bet that your wife is not a native American. The Lord told the Israelites to not deal with the Moabites [Deuteronomy 2:18-19] or bother them....but we see Moses and the Israelites all over Moab in scripture [Numbers 33:48-56]. The Moab of the Israelites was similar to the California I live in. It was once owned by Spain and Mexico but is now owned by the USA. We still call it California!

The Moab of Israel was more or less the breadbasket of the area [Numbers 32:1-5] and during the famine in Judah [Ruth 1:1] Naomi, Elimelech and their two sons would have naturally come to the Moab of their brother Israelites to wait it out instead of going to a foreign country (Kingdom of Moab) where their God, (Jehova) wasn't worshipped [I Kings 11:7], the Moabites did not want them there [Numbers 22:4-6] and God did not want them there also [Deuteronomy 2:18-19].

Other than that....I think you are correct. Being a physical Israelite does not mean you have been saved by grace. It means you are descended from one of the children of Jacob. That's it! There are some who get carried away with "The Identity Movement" and believe all kinds of nonsense. This is one reason I attempt to back everything up with scripture. Some things I believe are not in the mainstream of Christian theology and many Biblical illiterates can get confused by the the fact.....they are Biblical illiterates!

729 posted on 09/08/2007 5:46:41 PM PDT by Diego1618

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC

I'm sorry for my scriptural error.....Deuteronomy 2:18-19 in both cases should be Deuteronomy 2:9.

The Ammonites of 18-19 should not be confused with the Amorites which had previously conquered "The Plains of Moab" and then subsequently had this territory taken from them by Moses and the Children of Israel.

730 posted on 09/08/2007 8:29:14 PM PDT by Diego1618

To: William Terrell; DouglasKC; Ping-Pong; Cvengr; Thinkin' Gal

We know that the House of Israel survived and existed somewhere, but not in Judah's domain.

A scripture that fairly well describes just this is [John 7:35] Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

Jesus had been reluctant to go to the Feast as He knew the Jews were waiting to kill him [7:1] and his own brothers, who did not believe in Him, were trying to get Him to go as they were well aware of this situation [7:5] and were hoping the Jews would do just that....kill Him!

After telling His brothers that His time was not yet right [7:8] He went anyway, incognito....and halfway through the Feast He began to teach at the temple. He asked the Jews point blank....."why are you trying to kill Me?" [7:19] The crowd responded by telling Him He was demon possessed [7:20], and asked "Who is trying to kill you?"

Some of the people (thinking He could actually be The Messiah) could not understand why He would be here...at the Feast, speaking publicly and stumping the Jews with their own Talmudic interpretations [7:25-27] and Jesus pretty well tells the crowd just who He actually is [7:28-29].

Well.....that just about caused a riot and the Pharisees attempt to have Him arrested but of course it cannot be, because it is not His time yet. He tells them He is with them only for a short time and then will be going back to the one who sent Him.....and they will look for Him but not be able to find Him. He also tells them where He will be.... they cannot go!

This statement is what prompts the question I began this post with. The Jews are basically saying, "Where in the world could He possibly be going that we cannot come and find Him? Is He going to our people (Israelites) scattered among the Gentiles?" The word dispersed in the Greek is #1290. diaspora (dee-as-por-ah')dispersion, i.e. (specially and concretely) the (converted) Israelite resident in Gentile countries (which are) scattered (abroad).

The word "diaspora" is translated "Israelites scattered", not Jews scattered. The Jews were the ones doing the asking! This is what the Apostle Peter was referring to in [Acts 2:36] when he is speaking to the Jews explaining that "All Israel" needs to hear of this and the Jews of the first century knew exactly where their brother Israelites were. Jesus alluded to it also in [John 10:16] as well as [Matthew 10;5-6][Matthew 15:24] and [John 21:15-17].

There is much false doctrine floating around that would cause some well meaning folks to believe that God is not serious when He speaks of the House of Judah and the House of Israel as two separate entities. Well....[John 7:35] fairly well proves that the first century Jews at least still believed Him!

731 posted on 09/08/2007 9:56:29 PM PDT by Diego1618

To: fortheDeclaration; Diego1618

Deu 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 forever: Deu 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.
See, your reading ability is poor.
That passage refer to the forbidding of the entrance of the Moabites into the Congregation of the Lord, not the marriage of them.

Many scholars believe that indeed you became a member of congregation of the Lord by marrying an Israelite and this is what is being referred to.

Now, since the word Moabite is used, it is clear that it was the men who were the ones forbidden to enter into the Congregation, not the women.

The word "Moabite" is an English translation of a word that is translated "Moab" once, "Moabite" 6 times, "Moabites" 3 times and, Moabitess 6 times. It does not designate a sex in and of itself.

Your supposition that it refers only to men is due to two things:

1. You only believe that one, particular, English translation of scripture is valid and you don't recognize hebrew, chaldee or any other language as valid.
2. You believe that Ruth was a racial Moabite.

God didn't forbid Egyptians. Just the opposite: Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. First, that is not dealing with marriage, now is it? It is dealing with hospitality.

Oh?

Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.
Deu 23:8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.

That's pretty hospitable of them to have sex, have children, but not get married.

Actually, you yourself admitted to my comment regarding foreign women and their false gods' maybe so, amd it so to anyone who can read either English or Hebrew.

Maybe so applies to SOME foreign women. But has been painstakingly pointed out in scripture, by the mouth of the Lord himself, this wasn't the stated reason with Moabites.

No matter how much you try and wiggle around it, it's still there:

God stated his reason. Don't substitute your own.

732 posted on 09/09/2007 6:19:45 AM PDT by DouglasKC

A scripture that fairly well describes just this is [John 7:35] Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles

Wow...great catch! Scripture is clear here in that they believed that Israelites were so "lost" among the gentiles that Christ would have to teach the gentiles to get through to the Israelites.

733 posted on 09/09/2007 6:24:51 AM PDT by DouglasKC

That's pretty hospitable of them to have sex, have children, but not get married.

LOL! Great post, Douglas.

734 posted on 09/09/2007 9:58:23 AM PDT by Diego1618

[ See, your reading ability is poor. That passage refer to the forbidding of the entrance of the Moabites into the Congregation of the Lord, not the marriage of them.]

Many scholars believe that indeed you became a member of congregation of the Lord by marrying an Israelite and this is what is being referred to.

Is that what the passage says?

It doesn't say a word about marriage!

And many scholars also say that the passage refers only to men!

You will note that vs.1-2 refer to someone having their stones and privy members cut off' and a 'bastard' Clearly, all references to men.

[ Now, since the word Moabite is used, it is clear that it was the men who were the ones forbidden to enter into the Congregation, not the women. ]

The word "Moabite" is an English translation of a word that is translated "Moab" once, "Moabite" 6 times, "Moabites" 3 times and, Moabitess 6 times. It does not designate a sex in and of itself.

Ofcourse it does!

Based on the context as noted above in vs.1-2!.

And many scholars think exactly that, that it only referred to the men.

Your supposition that it refers only to men is due to two things: 1. You only believe that one, particular, English translation of scripture is valid and you don't recognize hebrew, chaldee or any other language as valid. 2. You believe that Ruth was a racial Moabite.

1. Yes, I believe there is only one valid English translation, the King James, but that doesn't change anything since every translation translated the word 'Moabite'

2. Nothing in any of those foreign languages changes the fact that the context is referring to men.

3. You only reject the truth of that fact, because you don't want to believe that Ruth was, in fact, what the Bible says she was, a woman from the people of Moab.

God didn't forbid Egyptians. Just the opposite: Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

[ First, that is not dealing with marriage, now is it? It is dealing with hospitality. ]

Oh? Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. Deu 23:8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation. That's pretty hospitable of them to have sex, have children, but not get married.

Where does it say anything about Israelites marrying with Egytians and Edomites? It just means that Egyptian and Edomite children are allowed the same rights of the Israelites in the 3rd generation.

It doesn't say a word about intermarriage!

All of you B.I. guys must have the same inability to read what is actually there, and read into it, something that isn't.

[ Actually, you yourself admitted to my comment regarding foreign women and their false gods' maybe so, amd it so to anyone who can read either English or Hebrew. ]

Maybe so applies to SOME foreign women. But has been painstakingly pointed out in scripture, by the mouth of the Lord himself, this wasn't the stated reason with Moabites.

It applies to all of those women listed in Ezra 9:1, which included the Moabite women.

The forbidding of foreign women was based on their clinging to their false Gods.

Ruth gave up hers, so she could marry Boaz and did.

So, there was nothing 'painsakingly pointed out by the Lord' forbidding marriage to a Moabitess, when she had converted to the Israelite faith.

That view only comes from your own flawed interpretation of scripture which is due to poor reading skills and a dishonest heart.

No matter how much you try and wiggle around it, it's still there: Deu 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 forever: Deu 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. God stated his reason. Don't substitute your own.

And once again that passage doesn't refer to the Moabite women.

And you have not addressed the passage in Ezra 9:1 where Egyptian women are mentioned as well as Moabite ones.

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.

So, the basis of rejection of those women as wives was their idol worship.

Yet, Joseph married an Egyptian woman.

So, it is you are rejecting the word of God by placing your own spin on the Book of Ruth.

Boaz could marry a Moabitess because she had rejected her own pagan gods and accepted the true God of Israel.

Your appeal to Deut.23:3-4 doesn't change that fact, since it doesn't refer to women, as the context proves from verses 1-2.

So, once again, the attempts by the B.I. sect, to twist the clear words of God, fail.

735 posted on 09/10/2007 3:40:34 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

To: William Terrell

I consider imposing an interpretation on a biblical passage because that interpretation supports held beliefs, and no other reason. Peter addresses the House of Israel because it is there, present at the feast, composing members from all 10 tribes, as well as the house of Judah, which composes the other 2, so members from all 12 tribes are present in the land. Peter obviously is referring to Israel in this passage. . . Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. To clarify, here another passage you didn't mention. . . Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. I don't think anything more need be said.

No, nothing more needs to be said.

All of the 12 tribes were represented in the Land, at that time.

So, your constant attempts to deny that fact is simply hot air.

Well, when it refers to the house of Israel, it always refers to the 10 tribes after the division. So once again, you show that you do not know what you are talking about. That's what I said, wasn't? You can't comprehend the House of Judah by referring to the House of Israel, therefore the two houses were not combined, as you believe.

Oh, yes they were, since the House of Judah is referred to in Acts 2 as well by, 'ye men of Judea'

Now, your problem is that you keep thinking of terms of the two houses being combined as Houses, which they are not.

They are combined as a nation, but have yet to be combined together as a Kingdom, which is what the division into 'houses' represented.

[ Individuals from every tribe were in Israel as the time of Christ, how they got there, either by returning or having been left there is irrelevant. ]

Cite where members of every tribe of Israel were in Palestine during Christ. You've cited one, and keep using it over and over.

Acts 2. refers to those lands that the ten tribes were removed to and they are represented there by Jews.

The House if Israel was present in the Land at the time of Christ.

[ Something about that verse you do not understand? 2Chron. 34, 9 And when they came to Hilkiah the high priest, they delivered the money that was brought into the house of God, which the Levites that kept the doors had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin; and they returned to Jerusalem. ]

Chronicles wasn't written during the appearance of Christ, or even sufficiently before. It dated from Adam to 539 BC. this is supposed to prove what?

It is proves (to anyone who can read) that the members of the 10 tribes were still in the land after the deportation by the Assyrians.

[ Those are tribes from the Northern Kingdom listed after the deportation by the Assyrians. ]

And the deportation of the Assyrians were to various cities of the Medes, where those tribes languished over a century.

And many of those same tribe members stayed in the land, as well.

But, I'm talking about a specific recording. If Hosea had been fulfilled in New Testament time, don't you think it would have been written about?

When did I ever say that those passages in Hosea 1:9-10 were fulfilled?

Why do you waste my time?

Why are you wasting band space with your nonsense?

[ That is because they aren't. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are indeed the 'real' Israelites and have forgotten. ]

Obviously, they have.

Obviously?

Well, that is something you actually have to prove, not assert.

And once again, your logic is flawed.

There were enough Israelites left in the land after the deportations to repopulate the land.

We also see some coming back with Ezra and visiting the Land during the Pentecost.

So, no one has to show anything to prove that they were in the Land.

But you have to prove that they actually went somewhere, which you can't.

You only assume that they did, based on your flawed assumptions and logic.

[ And you are missing what the Bible says, that the House of Israel was in Israel when Christ was there. The House of Israel and the House of Judah were both present in the land at the time of Christ.]

And you have no writings stating that Israelites went anywhere as a people, they either went back to the land or assimilated into the surrounding culture. And you cannot prove anything different.

Actually, the fact that House of Israel is mentioned by both the Lord and Peter confirms the fact that they were in the Land.

Also, Anna was there as well.

Now, based on the logic of the issue, it is you who have to show that they actually did go somewhere else, not remain in the Land.

Josephus states that they right were the Assyrian took them and hadn't gone anywhere.

You make these statement, like, by your saying it, makes it true.

Well, at least I have some facts to support my view.

Where is your evidence that they actually moved somewhere?

By your own concession, you have none.

Your belief that they did is based on your own flawed reasoning and inability to read the Bible in simple English.

Actually you said they must have assimilated with the cultures among which they found themselves, when you were being pressure to present evidence of Israel in Palestine.

I said that those deported assimilated into those lands in which they were taken to.

And that was in my first post to you.

When you put forth the reasoning that you had that stated that the only logical conclusion was that the tribes had left and went somewhere else, I stated that you had left out the most obvious alternative, that they had been assimilated into the surrounding culture.

And I cited two published historical works, one on Assyria and one on Israel to support that view.

You had no evidence at all, except empty rhetoric.

The evidence that is available to you indicates the Israel split up. Some remained as troublemakers in the old Assyria and some went to other places, like Europe.

You have supplied no evidence of that at all.

There is no evidence of any of the 10 tribes moving as the 10 tribes-and you know it.

Well, I like to have the truth, not myths.

Preferring myths over truth, doesn't seem, however, to be a problem with you B.I. guys.

No, I don't have to produce any text to prove anything.

Since you are the one making the outrageous claims that 10 tribes moved into Western Europe and then forgot who they were, it is your responsibility to actually prove it, not jus assert it.

And since you cannot, you continue with your appeals to flawed logic and empty rhetoric.

Moreover, it is not the children of Abraham who are considered, for the purposes of the promises, Israelites, it is the children of Isaac and Jacob and the 12 tribes.

So, stop trying to sneak in more untruths.

What ever in the world is your problem with that?

It is not true that's why.

And no Western nations are the 'Israelites'.

The Israelites are the Jews.

[ And let me make this as clear as possible to your befuddled mind, there is no 'Judah' there are only Jews, which are composed of individuals of all 12 tribes, not just the Southern Kingdom. ]

That is your theory unsupported by anything. Show me some record of Israel having returned to Judah in Palestine in all its numbers.

Once again, you make the assumption that some particular numbers are necessary.

The numbers are irrelevant since the promises haven't been fulfilled and won't be until after the Millennial reign of Christ.

So, I don't have to show you anything.

What you have to show is that those tribes actually went somewhere-which you can't.

[ Ofcourse I know the nature of it, it is clearly stated in Scripture. It will happen when the Church is removed and the world goes through the Tribulation, as stated very clearly by the Lord in Matthew 24. After that there will be 1,000 years of perfect environment in which Christ will rule from Jerusalem and all 12 tribes will be represented and have an inheritance, since Christ is the King of the Jews. ]

Ofcourse it is clearly stated but you just don't want to read what it says.

You think you have some great reasoning ability that means you do not have to actually believe what the scripture says.

Your reasoning ability is quite flawed and limited as is made clear by your inability to grasp fundamental logical fallacies, like begging the question and straw man, which you make constant appeals to.

Lordy, how many times has this Matthew cite been effectively argued against on just this thread.

Actually, you haven't been able to refute Matthew 24 once in these posts.

All of this is a theory that you just happen to believe. Numerous others, probably a majority, do repeatedly beg to differ.

And now an appeal to numbers?

Another logical fallacy!

What do I care about how many believe in what the Bible actually says?

So, my theory is based on what the Bible actually says, not on twisting the words to make them say something else.

[ No, I cited very clear passages in Ezekiel that you just choose to ignore because you are 'wise in your conceits' and 'high and heady minded' You posted Ezekiel but I didn't see where you made your case. There is no mention of the millennial reign of Christ there, nor the reunited nation of Israel choosing Christ as their head.

Well, the reunited tribes are there getting their inheritance.

A rebuilt Temple is there where the waters flow out of it to heal the rivers around it!

Doesn't sound like anything that is going to happen unless the Millennium is going on.

All of that is what you add to it.

No, that is what the passages show.

The Prince sits in the Temple and that would fulfill the Davidic Covenant (Ps.89)

[ Israel did return to Israel as individuals. See 2Chronicles above. Christ and Peter both mention the 'house of Israel' being present and that term is only used for the Northern Kingdom after the split in 1Ki.12. So, what you want proven is that the 10 tribes returned as tribes, but those tribes were present in the land after the deportation by the Assyrians as shown by 2Chronicles 34. Now, what you have to show is that those deported tribes went somewhere and you can't, so stop talking like you can. ]

We have already discussed Israel returning as "individuals" or returning as a "kingdom". The notion of a difference is asinine, and appears to be desperate.

No, it makes alot of sense, since that is what happened.

The Kingdom of Israel hasn't been reformed from the 12 tribes, but the people are together again in the Land and dispersed, known by us as Jews.

Chronicles, as noted, did not prove anything.

Ofcourse it did.

It showed that those same tribes were still in the land even after the Deportation and thus, they did not have tocome back from Assyria.

Christ and Peter noted by implication that the House of Israel was elsewhere.

Quite the contrary.

Christ went to the 'lost house of Israel' and Peter addressed them in Acts 2.

Deportation, again, was in the initial capturing of Israel, therefore had nothing to do with where Israel finally ended up.

We know where the records stated they were settled in.

There is evidence from the Assyrians themselves that some of Israel occupied parts of old Assyria and some left headed north.

Once again, the movement of some Israelites does your theory no good.

You have to show a mass movement of the 10 tribes, not some outpost reports, reports that I have not seen in anything on the Assyrian records.

So, I doubt very much that they actually exist.

But even if they do, they do nothing to support your thesis.

And once again, there would be no reason for a migration back to the Land by those 10 tribes.

Most were left in the Land after the Assryian deportation.

So, your attempts to appeal to any lack of migration back to the Land by the Assyrian deportee's shows your own inability to think clearly and deal with the available evidence.

[ Already shown it by the scriptures, the term House of Israel being used and the tribes mentioned in 2Chronciles by name. You only reject the evidence because it doesn't fit your warped theory. ]

All you have shown me is a single passages that does not deal with the time period we are discussing.

Clearly you have a hard time dealing with simple facts.

What that passage proves is that the 10 tribes were in fact still in the Land, even after the Deportation by Assyria.

Just like there were still members from the tribe of Judah left in the Southern Kingdom when they were finally deported.

[ You have cited nothing that proves your case. There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states that those tribes went anywhere as tribes. We know that Jews were in Turkey and all of the Mideast, Asia Minor and Europe. That was the curse of their Diaspora, to be scattered throughout the world. They did not forget they were Hebrews. ]

Keep saying saying that with no backup to prove your words. You didn't even know there were Assyrian writings, so I can't expect you to believe what they say.

There are no Assyrian records that support what you are trying to assert.

There is no record of any of the 10 tribes moving anywhere as a people nor rising up in revolt.

Your constant appealing to them is simply dishonest on your part, since you cannot produce them!

Indigenous?

You mean assimilated

LOL.

Nothing in any record shows any mass movement by the 10 tribes going anywhere into Western Europe.

So, stop your nonsense.

You keep using the word, 'obviously' when nothing could be less 'obvious'.

That is what you actually have to prove since it is not obvious at all.

And you show me some work that states that the 10 tribes went somewhere as 10 tribes.

I don't have to show you anything, since we know from history that they were left in the Land and were in the Land when the Lord was there.

[ Those individuals from those tribes were left in the land by Assyria went back into Israel and blended with the other 2 tribes. They will be reunited as a Kingdom in the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ and not before.]

You keep making these flat statements, then no backing them up.

I have backed them with historical and Biblical evidence.

You have not backed up any of your contentions with a single supportable fact.

I already have, what evidence that can possibly be presented nearly three millennia after the fact. You haven't show me any hard evidence, or even unambiguous implication.

You haven't given any evidence.

Evidence is fact not conjecture.

I know you B.I. liars have a hard time grasping the difference.

[ I have the evidence of it from scripture, that one of the promises made by God that He would multiply the House of Israel during the Millennium. Ezek. 36, 10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: 11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men. ]

Huh? Where is there any millennial reign of Christ in this?

Check the other scriptures that have been cited, like Ezek.34 where God says He will multiply the people.

I know actually comparing scripture with scripure is a little too much for you guys.

You would rather distort it.

[ Not according to the Scriptures which states that one of the benefits that God brings to the house of Israel is the ending of the heathen nations 'bereaving the [house of Israel]' of men'(vs.12) So where does 'your sand of the sea' argument hold up if the heathen are accused of bereaving the house of Israel of men? It doesn't. The House of Israel will become as the sand of the sea during the Millennial reign, not before. ]

This only assuming that the seed of Abraham, Israel, is not already the sands of the see, now. And it certainly is "'bereaving the [house of Israel]' of men'(vs.12)". And God can end it.

No, it is not assuming anything.

The fact is that the verse undermines your entire contention that the House of Israel must be as the 'sands of the sea' when in fact, the Lord has said that He will keep them relatively small by 'bereaving them of men'

So, once again a simple scripture has exposed your entire false theory.

I mention this to show that your arguments are ambiguous, that is to say, they admit to several equally reasonable interpretations.

No, your attempts at another interpretation fall flat.

Your entire view is based on the idea that the prophecy of Israel must become as the 'sands of the sea' now in order for it to be fulfilled.

And that is not happening now, the Israelites are under judgment now.

None of God's promise requires the millennial reign of Christ to fulfill it. That is just your theory.

No, that is what the scriptures say, (Rom.11)

That is what God's word states, that the perfect enviroment will not happen until Christ reigns, in the Millennium.

You must rely on metaphysics and symbols which you have no idea what they mean.

No, it is clearly stated in scripture.

[ Nothing you have cited has proven anything that you contend regarding the moving of the 10 tribes. You have cited tablets that have stated what is already well known, that the 10 tribes were in the northern part of Assyria. Not a single shred of evidence that those tribes moved anywhere as tribes-so stop pretending that you did. You only reveal the fact that you are a fraud. ]

I reproduced this in amusement. It is simply a contentless fit on the floor. You waste my time with this.

Well, it is true.

You just repeat what is well known and then go on to assert what you need to prove.

You are a fraud.

[ Oh, I read them, and you say nothing in them that is worth any consideration. There is no a major history on Assyria that would state those 10 tribes left Assyria intact and went into Western Europe. And you know it,but you keep spreading your myths and fables. ]

You know, I rarely say this, but I don't believe you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see much evidence of it. You seem to rely on techniques to hold your position.

Well, supply some evidence that says that those tribes left intact and then settled in Western Europe and forgot who they were!

You can't-period.

[ And if they had robes, so what? Once again, more hot air and nonsense. ]

Israelite garb, seen among peoples fleeing the Assyrian meltdown going north? So what?

No one but Israelites wore robes?

My you sure build a thesis from some flimsy evidence.

And how many were seen fleeing?

Oh, that's right you do not actually have any numbers.

[ So? And there were people moving all over the place. What you have to prove is that those people were the Israelites who then moved into Western Europe and forgot who they were. Nothing in those plates indicate that. ]

There are writings and scratched images on tablets that indicate, but after almost 3 millennia, there is nothing to absolutely prove it.

Well, I guess you have to admit then that you have no actual facts to prove your thesis then!

We have records of other people moving around, but we do not have any records of this great event!

But you know that it happened-without any evidence of it happening.

You clearly do not understand the rules of evidence.

First, you have to prove that those from the Western European nations have Israelite blood in them.

They do not.

Nothing in the Western nations DNA shows Mideastern blood.

Second, it is not just the children of Abraham that is the issue, it is the children of Issac and Jacob.

We know that Abraham had other children, but they did not get the promises.

The promises flow through Issac, Jacob and the 12 tribes.

Third, you have to show that people from Assyria actually went into the West-which you cannot show.

So, your entire thesis is nothing but a tissue of lies and conjecture built on zero evidence.

You can't even cite an ancient writer that records such an event like the northern kingdom returning to Palestine.

Don't have to, (you really are quite dense), since we know that many were left in the Land after the Deportation.

Which you yourself have admitted.

And those numbers would have increased over 6 centuries as well.

[ The 10 deported tribes either assimilated or moved back into the land on an individual basis. There is no historical evidence of them moving together out of Assyria and into Europe-and then forgetting that they were Hebrews-and you know it! ]

There is written evidence that supports all but returning to Palestine (your assumption), assimilating and migrating elsewhere but not to Palestine, which lends credence to Israel being the sands of the sea.

There is no evidence of them going anywhere from Assyria as a group and you have admitted it-so stop spreading lies.

And the present Jews not being all that's left of Abraham's bloodline. That's the problem you really have isn't it? I can see how you, being Jewish, you would have a problem with that; it takes away some conceptual tools of security and protection.

Why you lousy liar!

I can see that you are nothing but a antisemitic bigot.

I told you that I was not Jewish.

And no one is taking anything away from the Jew, since God has given it to him unconditionally.

But I am glad that your anti-semitism has been exposed.

[ No need for an 'escape', when Assyria fell, the captives fell under Bablyonian captivity and when they fell to the Medes, they were under their control. Moreover, when the Jews went back to Israel, they would have taken back members from those tribes as shown in Ezra who could not state their own genealogy due to the loss of their records. The Southern tribes still had their genealogical records but would lose them in the Fall of Jerusalem. ]

The Assyrians held Israel "captive". That necessitates an "escape".

It does?

Why couldn't they assimilate and become part of the general population over time?

Once again your assertions are based on flawed reasoning.

Didn't you read in the scriptures that the Assyrians placed the northern kingdom in and among the Medes?

And we know that there was alot of movement in those areas after the fall of Assyria.

So, those same Israelites could have moved throughout the empire after is collapse and even returned back to the Land as individuals.

You keep making these statements and providing no backup. These are theories, like the one I'm arguing in favor of.

My 'theory' has historical and Biblical support, yours doesn't.

Your 'theory' is built on zero evidence.

It comes from a flawed view of what Hosea says and then reconstructs history to make it fit that false view.

Your only defense of it lies in the fact that you cannot understand Hosea.

There is no actual evidence to support your view.

[ Oh, stop your nonsense! You have not posted a single record showing any mass exodus by the 10 tribes out of Assyria. And there is not a major history of Assyria that would support your fabrication of the truth. ]

Well? Do you want the titles of some books written by people who have studied the Assyrian tablets with an eye to Israel, or not?

Sure supply the names of the books.

Do they show that there are Assyrian records that show the mass movement of the 10 tribes?

I guess not since you have admitted that you don't have any such evidence.

[ There is evidence that the house of Israel was present in Israel at the time of Christ. And your appeal to the Assyrian records is bogus, since no Assyrian record shows that those tribes went anywhere as the 10 tribes. The entire B.I. theory is built on a lies. ]

Gasp. Lies, lies, lies.

Well, that is all you have!

Show me some ancient writings that record the return of the northern kingdom to merge with Judah.

I don't have to.

Your inability to think clearly has led you to ignore the simple fact that many from those 10 tribes were left in the Land and that is clearly shown by scripture.

So stop being so stupid!

[ There is not a single Assyrian plate that shows any mass exodus by the 10 tribes and you know it. ]

Now, regardless of the books written from study of the Assyrian records, you probably are not so rockheaded to think many of those record weren't about the northern kingdom? Right?

As I said, there is not a single record of any mass exodus-so stop trying to bluff your way out that fact.

You have admitted that yourself.

And, you're right, there is no plate that says, "There was a mass exodus of the previously held northern kingdom of Israel northward to Europe (or whatever the Assyrians called that region)." But there are writings that place peoples in Israelite clothing on that vector. And that's as close as anyone get to such ancient events.

Well, if that is all you have, you have nothing, so stop wasting my time and everyone elses.

You have admitted that there is no actual historial evidence to support your thesis and therefore it is not valid.

My view that those tribes were still in the Land is supported by the scriptures.

On the other hand, you have provided no written evidence whatsoever that records, or even indicates a mass return of the northern kingdom to Palestine at any time.

And once again, I don't have to.

It is amazing how shallow your thinking is!

You clearly have not been well educated, since you have no grasp of what is required to defend a thesis.

[ And you have nothing to prove anything for your idiotic theory. Those tribes did not leave Assyria as unified tribes and there is not a single Assyrian plate that shows that they did-and you know it. So stop spreading lies. ]

I have access to more evidence for the position I'm arguing than you do for your's. All you have, at the end of the day, is a consensus of like believers.

You have just admitted that you have no actual evidence.

What your thesis is based on is your own flawed reasoning and the rejection of the clear facts that contradict your thesis.

You have not provided the necessary evidence, which is actual proof of any mass movement.

What your argument consists of is straw man and question begging reasoning.

You assume what you need to prove and ignore the facts that show that your thesis has no logical support.

Most of what you do, if one were to isolate the sum total of your sentences, is simply repeat what you believe. As if repetition creates reality, like some liberal.

Actually, that is what you are doing.

I ask you for proof and you give me rhetoric.

You have failed to grasp the simple alternatives that those deportee's did not need to return to the Land as a such.

That the 10 tribes were represented in the Land by those that were left (as stated clearly in Scripture).

You ignore the fact that you have no actual evidence but think your logic overcomes that defect, which it doesn't, since your logic is flawed as well.

[ The effect of the 6 centuries was the assimilation of those 10 tribes into the surrounding culture, not them moving into Western Europe, a theory that you have yet to prove as a fact. ]

But 6 centuries is certainly feasible to migrating north to the European region. Especially when there are writings that spot such migrations with description of clothing, and Turkey is about a months march from where the Israelite were on the northern border of Assyria.

Not in a group large enough to form the nations of Western Europe!

Some individuals may have gone West, but not in the numbers to form a new people, and who forgot who they were.

So, your evidence does not support your theory.

What you have to show is that those 10 tribes moved as a people into Western Europe, forgot who they were and then formed the nation of Western Europe.

This not even to mentioning the plethora of myths and legends of ancient Europe is in line with Israelite names, language and customs. But that seems to be your real problem, isn't it? It's something about European types having the bloodline of Abraham. I admit I'm stumped as to why.

Well, that is all those are myths.

As for being 'stumped' that is not surprising, since you have no conception of wanting the truth.

The European's are not from the Mideast bloodline

More nonsense.

You keep requiring literal words describing exactly the event or you will reject all. This is not reasonable.

Gee, it is not reasonable not to expect facts to support a theory

Well, that it doesn't seem to bother you.

Why let facts get in the way of a good myth!

As for being children of Abraham, why should it make such a big deal for you?

I could less if I were related by blood to Abraham, I am related by faith to his spiritual seed.

[ No, I never said that those low numbers were all that was left. What I said that it certainly was not millions deported, as you were contending. Whatever numbers were deported were relatively small and enough people were left to move to repopulate and remain viable as the 'house of Israel' which were in the land in the time of Christ. So, you have contradicted your own contention that it was necessary for the tribes to remain intact in Assyria or else prophecy couldn't be fulfilled. Even if those deported did not come back, there were still enough remaining from the 10 tribes in the land to keep those tribes alive, as they are today, and mingled together as Jews. ]

You require low numbers because your theory can't deal with large numbers of Israelites returning to Palestine; it upsets the know known demographics of the regions.

I don't require any numbers.

I require actual facts, which you don't have.

So, those left in the land after the deportations would have represented the 10 tribes quite nicely.

More illogical assumptions on your part.

Yes, which means that many from the 12 tribes were left in the Land and not deported.

So you undercut your entire thesis.

Do you not read my posts? The majority of population of any northern kingdom areas were kept to work the land and pay tribute.

That would refer to the deportees, not those left in the land and not deported.

So, once again you have not advanced your own thesis with any facts.

And what does that have to do with those left in the land-nothing.

And I get tired of telling you that you have not stated anything that is already well known.

What you have to show is the actual moving of those deportees.

We know where they ended up-in Northern Assyria, you have to show them going into Western Europe.

Evidence has been given.

It is from common word usage.

I cited the ISBE as an a reference.

[ No, it is clear you do have a hard time with English. What I was saying is that those tribes remained in the land, so that even after the deportation, there were members of each tribe in the land. ]

First, I never said anything about them being wiped out.

That is simply another straw man on your part.

Second, Sargon did not deport those remaining in the land, he deported those from the captial city of Samaria.

Not everyone from the land was deported, that is why those who were put into the land mixed with those that were there to form a mixed race, the Samartians.

This means the vast majority of Israel survived to remain vast numbers when Assyria fell. What about this don't you understand? It comes from historical evidence and writings.

You just admitted that you have no evidence of what became of those in Assyria.

Why don't you stop lying.

[ So, your view that the tribes of the deportation have to be somewhere or else prophecy is overthrown is a false one. Those people who were deported could have become assimilated with the culture and lost their identify as Hebrews and yet, all of the 12 tribes still existed since the members of the 10 tribes were in the Land. ]

Assilimate means to become part of the surrounding culture and remain where they are.

Once again you have no records of anyone going anywhere-so stop pretending you do.

The point is that much of the world's population is evidentially of the bloodline of Abraham, including the European region. And they certainly don't know who they are.

You are an idiot if you think that!

Abraham's bloodline is Mideastern.

[ Could some of the deportees have returned to the land-yes, as individuals, but not as tribes, since they had lost their proof of who they were. ]

Ah, lost proof. How about lost identity, but they would, from your view, have to retain identity because they would have to have that to return to Judah in Palestine.

They could return but could not prove what tribe they came from.

The distinction between an political aggregate abstract term and the people that compose that term continues to escape me.

Well, it is clear that alot 'escapes' you, like facts, reason and truth.

[ So, your entire 'logical' view that the 10 deported tribes must have remained intact and become some other people in order for prophecy to be fulfilled is overthrown. ]

It is overthrown based on the actual evidence that exists.

It is overthrown by the fact that Abraham's seed are Mideastern.

[ Where is the record of the House of Israel going anywhere else as a body-there is none. And there is no 'numbers' problem except in your own distorted thinking. God doesn't need any particular number, all He needs is all of the tribes to remain in existence. The tribe of Benjamin once got down to only 600 men. More 'question begging' and 'circular reasoning' on your part. ]

Well, that is what you need to prove not just assert.

I presume that Hosea is God's prophet and Hosea is in to numbers.

You are just misreading Hosea.

[ There were no 'great' numbers. You have yourself stated that only the trouble makers were deported, not everyone! And those same Medes show up in Acts 2! Don't you read your own posts! ]

Only the troublemakers were deported. The rest of the population of that area stayed there.

So, you contradict what you have just stated above.

So there were alot of Israelites left in the Land after the deportation.

And the Assyrians also imported another group of people into the Land as well.

You do the numbers.

I have and they do not add up to your false thesis.

[ Yes, and obviously, they did not flee as a group to Western Europe. ]

Not if you are going to become the people of Western europe.

Even 6 centuries will not give you enough people unless you are have some real numbers and they have be from all 10 tribes.

Whereas, there is nothing to suggest that any number at all went to Palestine and merged with Judah there.

They didn't have to, many had been left.

[ And those that left, did not go into Western Europe and forget who they were. Nothing in those tablets suggest that. ]

There is only the reported direction of travel. Considering how close to Europe they already were. . .

More conjecture on your part.

[ All those tablets suggest is that people were uprising and there were movement within the Assyrian Empire, not that the 10 tribes had stayed a united kingdom and fought against Assyria and left to move into Western Europe. ]

Well, all 10 tribes would have to represented.

Your theory doesn't hold up regarding the numbers.

Whereas we have no vector at all toward Palestine.

No need to, they were left in the Land.

[ I don't need any! All I need is people from those tribes in the Land, which they were. It doesn't matter if none of the deportees ever made it back, since by your own admission, many Israelites were left in the land when the Assryians deported the 'malcontents'. So, as 2Chroncicles clearly shows, those tribes were in the Land after the Assyrian deportation. The return of the deportees is not necessary for prophecy to be fulfilled. God warned those fled from the South, not to go into Egypt because they would not return, and they didn't. ]

You need something. Piling all those Israelites on Judah in Palestine would screw up the demographics already recorded for that time.

You keep repeating nonsense like it is true.

All that is needed is enough people for all of the 10 tribes to be present.

But all you have is one cite of one gal that belonged to another tribe than Judah, Levi or Benjamin, which came from some who joined Judah when the Assyrians placed Israel under siege. They were already there when Neb rounded Judah up.

Anna shows that the tribe of Aser was present in the Land.

So the tribes were present in the land at the time of Christ.

Then, after T-p II's death Sargon moved them all to be dispersed among the Medians. My mention of those left after the deportees was to make my point that Israel retained numbers, which you claimed previously they didn't.

Enough people were left to represent the tribes.

Sargon only took 27,000.

And, As I showed, Chronicles did not cover the necessary period.

Hey, stupid, it covered the period after the deportation.

So the tribes were in the land after the fall of Samaria.

What is necessary for the prophecy to be fulfilled is lots and lots of Abraham's bloodline, and we have that assumption.

We have not a single fact to support your assumption and the Western people are not from the bloodline of Abraham-which is mideastern.

I mentioned nothing about Egypt.

Who cares.

[ And you have no sense of history, prophecy, logic or truth. The children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not just Abraham, who had other children), are Jews and are known as such today. There is no record of them migrating to Europe as the 10 tribes. They entered Europe as Jews and that is what they were known as. ]

You keep saying that and I keep giving you information. I have some record, about as good for events 3 millenia ago as it gets. You have no record at all that Israel returned and merged with Judah.

You have admitted that you have no actual facts, just assumptions based on conjecture.

[ That 'sand of the sea' is for the future, not today. The Hebrews are dispersed throughout the world as was prophesied to them in Deut.38. ]

You have show nothing to indicate it will happen only after the millennial reign of Christ. Obviously, it will happen in the future because it hasn't happened yet.

That is because you cannot read English.

And the term today stands for both, as English usage shows.

If there is, cite it. The event would certainly have captured the attention of the writers of the day; plenty of other events concerning Judah certainly did.

And the event that you describe would have gotten some historical attention as well, but since it didn't happen, it isn't written about.

The word Jew today refers to all Hebrews.

[ Well, then those plates don't support what you are saying, they state that the Hebrews well remembered who they were. So once again you are appealing to evidence that doesn't support your thesis. You are asserting what you need to prove. And then you just jump to to Europe as if you have proven that those 10 tribes were there-and they weren't. So your talk about 'bloodlines' is beside the point, since the 10 tribes never moved into Western Europe as the 10 tribes. They were in Western Europe as Jews, part of the Diaspora. ]

I don't doubt there were some that kept the remnants of the old ways; population always do, but God put them on ice.

There are no Abrahmaic bloodlines in the Western European people.

That is the figment of your warped thinking.

The original point here is that there are plenty of Abraham's seed to fulfill Hosea, instead of all remaining being part of rapidly vanishing Judah.

And your point is a lie based on a myth.

Hosea will be fulfilled in the future.

It didn't matter if people moved as tribes or not, bloodlines comes from people. A "tribe" or "kingdom" is an abstract term; it doesn't have blood.

It matters if it isn't true.

So since you cannot prove your thesis you have to doubletalk.

There is no Abrahamic bloodline in the Western European people.

And all this blood certainly didn't go to Palestine after Assyria.

The bloodline stayed with the Jews and went where they went.

[ Ofcourse I am reading your posts and you have not provided a shred of real evidence to support the thesis that the Israelites moved into Western Europe. ]

I understand that your posts are full of conjecture and lies and are not supported by any actual facts.

[ Well, we know the Levites were there. We know that Anna from the tribe of Asher was there as well. We know that the 'house of Israel' was there, since the Lord went to it and Peter stated they had crucified the Lord. Now, anytime the House of Israel shows up after 1Ki.12, it refers to the Northern Kingdom of 10 tribes. ]

Certainly the Levites were there; they were teachers and priests distributed among all the tribes.

Yes, so they were in the Land with the other tribes.

There's that gal again. Do you have any other people? If Israel returned (10 tribes merged with 2) you have have endless mentions of other tribes.

We have the House of Israel mentioned as a people.

Where is your proof that the Israelites moved into Western Europe-oh that's right you have none.

We know that the House of Israel survived and existed somewhere, but not in Judah's domain. Hey-according to your own statements, they didn't have to 'return' they had remained in the land after the deportation by Assyria. I said some had remained in the lands occupied by Assyria. There were those who had remained in the land when the Babylonians deported the Southern tribe as well. Yes, and. . .? So, we do not need to worry about the deportees, we had those who had remained in the Land after the deportation and thus, the tribes were all present when the Lord was born. This a conclusion that, to me, means you didn't read my posts. And a false theory is one that has no facts. Your theory is false since it is not supported by the Bible, history, or logic. The facts are that all 12 tribes were in Israel at the birth of Christ and were known collectively as Jews, as they are today. Which would be yours, having no record of Israel returning to Palestine. I think I have shown the position I'm arguing is supported by all three. And as the Son of David, He is the King over all of the Tribes of Israel-all else prophecy would not be fufilled (Psa.89). And the point is, everybody.

And once again you have not given any actual evidence of your idiotic view that Israelites went into Western Europe and spread their bloodline.

And Christ comes back to rule everyone as the Son of David.

Now, what I have concluded from your worthless, idiotic posts is that you are an anti-semetic fraud and liar that has not evidence to support your myths.

736 posted on 09/10/2007 6:09:43 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

To: William Terrell

I didn't get these statements in the original post,so I will now.

We know that the House of Israel survived and existed somewhere, but not in Judah's domain.

Well, they certainly did not go to Western Europe.

They were in the same lands that they were deported to by the Assyrians and show up again visiting Jerusalem in Acts 2.

[ Hey-according to your own statements, they didn't have to 'return' they had remained in the land after the deportation by Assyria.]

I said some had remained in the lands occupied by Assyria. There were those who had remained in the land when the Babylonians deported the Southern tribe as well. Yes, and. . .? So, we do not need to worry about the deportees, we had those who had remained in the Land after the deportation and thus, the tribes were all present when the Lord was born. This a conclusion that, to me, means you didn't read my posts.

Your posts contain no facts to support what they assert.

So, what you really mean is that you cannot believe that I am rejecting what you haven't proven.

You are such an arrogant blowhard that you think because you assert a false theory without a shred of hard evidence, it is still suppose to be given credence.

Turn what you have posted on these posts into a college prof. for a term paper and you would flunk with an F.

A thesis to be true must have some substantive evidence, not some appeals to plates that show people in robes going somewhere.

Only an idiot would consider this as proof of anything, no less that the bloodline of Abraham spread Western Europe.

[ And a false theory is one that has no facts. Your theory is false since it is not supported by the Bible, history, or logic. The facts are that all 12 tribes were in Israel at the birth of Christ and were known collectively as Jews, as they are today.]

Which would be yours, having no record of Israel returning to Palestine.

You are quite slow aren't you?, you yourself have admitted that there people left in the land after the deportation.

So, I don't need to show any movement from Assyria.

A simple conclusion from a simple fact.

[ I think I have shown the position I'm arguing is supported by all three. And as the Son of David, He is the King over all of the Tribes of Israel-all else prophecy would not be fulfilled (Psa.89).]

And the point is, everybody.

Yes, but it is from the line of Judah (Gen.49:10), He is the lion of Judah (Rev.5:5) and rules the reunited Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, from the line of Abraham,Isaac, Jacob and the 12 tribes.

There is no 'bloodline' of Abraham that spread throughout the Western European nations, even over 6 centuries.

The DNA would show that very clearly.

So, your entire theory is simply smoke and mirrors.

And when you post to me again, follow the correct decorum of separating my statements from yours.

737 posted on 09/10/2007 6:56:51 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

To: fortheDeclaration

You are quite slow aren't you?...

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

738 posted on 09/10/2007 6:58:10 AM PDT by Religion Moderator

In, Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults regarding the British-Israelite movement, Martin cites Dr. David Baron, who he calls 'one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of the Christian Church'

Dr. Baron concludes his refutation of the British-Israel movement with this comment,

My last words on this subject must be those of warning and entreaty. Do not think, as so many do, that the Anglo-Israelism, even if not true, is only harmless speculation. I consider it nothing short of one of the latter-day delusions by which the Evil One seeks to divert attention of men from things spiritual and eternal (Pg.313)

739 posted on 09/10/2007 7:05:30 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

God stated his reason.

God stated His reason for forbidding the Moabite men from entering the congregation.

Don't substitute your own.

And don't make up yours.

740 posted on 09/10/2007 7:43:15 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794