Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church

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!

I guess we have to depend on other evidence to support our views then.

Where does it say anything about Israeliteos 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.

That's just ridiculous. You honestly believe that God is referring to spawning generations of children without marriage??

Deu 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

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.

First of all, the ONLY reason given in the Torah for not being able to marry a Moabite (which is like saying "American") has been pointed out numerous times:

Deu 23:3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD,
Deu 23:4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

However, you want to a phrase in Ezra and override Deuteronomy 23:4 with it. So let's look at Ezra:

Ezr 9:1 Now when these things had been completed, the princes approached me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites.
Ezr 9:2 "For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness."

Two things here. First "daughters" are the focus here and the term "Moabites" is used. So your theory about "Moabites" in Deuteronomy 23:3 only meaning men is on shaky ground.

Second, we saw what God's reason was for not marrying Moabites. But there was another reason for the others:

Deu 7:1 "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,
Deu 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Deu 7:3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
Deu 7:4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.

Now YOU want to ADD Moabites to THIS section of scripture and disregard God's reason for excluding Moabites in Deuteronomy 23:3.

Do you see what you're doing?

[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!]

I guess we have to depend on other evidence to support our views then.

Yes, and the evidence supports the correct view that forbidding of entrance into the congregation referred to the Moabite men.

[ Where does it say anything about Israeliteos 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. ]

That's just ridiculous. You honestly believe that God is referring to spawning generations of children without marriage??

Does it say anything about intermarriage-no.

The problem you have is that you are assuming 'entering into the congregation' is referring to marriage, which it isn't.

It is referring to the rights and privileges of citizenship of the covenant, not marriage per se.

(Heb. kahal), the Hebrew people collectively as a holy community (Nu 15:15). Every circumcised Hebrew from twenty years old and upward was a member of the congregation. Strangers resident in the land, if circumcised, were, with certain exceptions (Ex 12:19; Nu 9:14; De 23:1-3), admitted to the privileges of citizenship, and spoken of as members of the congregation (Ex 12:19; Nu 9:14; 15:15). (Eaton Bible Dictionary)

'eedah. CONVOCATION, qaahaal (restricted to the Pentateuch, except Isa 1:13). The Hebrew, regarded in their collective capacity as a "holy" community, gathered in sacred assembly composed of the homeborn Israelites. Settlers, only if circumcised, were admitted to the privileges (Ex 12:19). Each Israelite was member of a house; the family was a collection of houses; the tribe, a collection of families; the congregation, a collection of tribes. The CONGREGATION was a national parliament, with legislative and judicial powers. The CONVOCATION was restricted to religious meetings (Leviticus 23). Each house, family, and tribe had its head; these representative heads were "the elders" or "princes." (Faussett Bible Dictionary)

Congregation. This describes the Hebrew people in its collective capacity under its peculiar aspect as a holy community, held together by religious rather than political bonds. Sometimes it is used in a broad sense as inclusive of foreign settlers (Smith's Bible dictionary)

So, your belief that entrance into the congregration refers to marriage is an incorrect one.

Marriage was a means for a saved foreign woman to enter into the priveleges of the congregration and have her children considered legimate.

Thus, a saved foreign woman could marry a Hebrew man who was a member of the congregation and their children had full rights.

A Edomite couple's children could not enter in the full rights of the congregation until the 3rd generation.

Deu 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

Yes, and that had to do with illegitimate birth, not mixed marriages between a Hebrews and saved foreign women.

An illegitimate birth is one out of wedlock, hence a bastard as noted in Deut.23:2.

Or, one conceived with an unsaved foreign women. [ 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. ]

First of all, the ONLY reason given in the Torah for not being able to marry a Moabite (which is like saying "American") has been pointed out numerous times:

What you guys have pointed out 'numerous times' is totally wrong.

Clearly, from the context in vs.23:1-2 establishes the context of who is being spoken about-Moabite men

Deu 23:3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, Deu 23:4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

And you keep repeating a verse that has nothing to do with intermarriage.

Clearly, it was the men who did not meet them with bread and water and it was the men who hired Balam to curse them.

There are no women in the passage, it was all the acts of the Moabite men, not the women, who had no say in the matter.

But when you can't deal with the truth, you have to throw up as much smoke as possible.

However, you want to a phrase in Ezra and override Deuteronomy 23:4 with it. So let's look at Ezra: Ezr 9:1 Now when these things had been completed, the princes approached me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites. Ezr 9:2 "For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness." Two things here. First "daughters" are the focus here and the term "Moabites" is used. So your theory about "Moabites" in Deuteronomy 23:3 only meaning men is on shaky ground.

No, not really.

God clarified Moabite, by distinguishing the term with daughters.

So, when God wants to make us aware of the difference He writes it down.

In Deut.23 the context is made clear with the prohibition of men who were 'wounded in their stones and had his privy member cut off' clearly not referring to women!

Context does matter!

Second, we saw what God's reason was for not marrying Moabites. But there was another reason for the others: Deu 7:1 "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, Deu 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Deu 7:3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. Deu 7:4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. Now YOU want to ADD Moabites to THIS section of scripture and disregard God's reason for excluding Moabites in Deuteronomy 23:3 Do you see what you're doing?

Well, you have to take some remedial classes with your buddies!

Deut 7:4 explains why they were not to take the moabite women, because they would turn their hearts away from the Lord.

Moreover, you did not address the forbidding the marriage of Egyptian women in Ezra 9:1, you just ignored it, trying to avoid what the clear teaching on it is, that the only issue in not marrying a foreign woman was their clinging to their own gods, which Ruth did not do, nor did Rehab.

And then you quote a verse that supports my view and not yours, which states why they were forbidden to marry those foreign women, they would take them away from the true God of Israel and lead them to false gods, which was the case of Solomon.

So, rather than deal with the truth that entering the congregation meant full citizenship in the Hebrew community, including worship in the Tabernacle and Temple, you just construct your theory and twist scripture to fit it.

Ruth was a Moabite woman who was worshiping false gods but converted to the God of Israel, thus, Boaz was fully justified in marrying her, just as Joseph could marry an Egyptian woman.

Yet, Ezra commands those who had Egyptian wifes to put them away because those wifes had not been converted to the Hebrew faith.

Deut 7:4 explains why they were not to take the moabite women, because they would turn their hearts away from the Lord.

AAAAAARGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOABITES ARE NOT LISTED. THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT. SPECIFIC TRIBES ARE LISTED:

Deu 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
Deu 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
Deu 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Deu 7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly

WHY DO YOU WANT TO ADD THEM TO THIS LIST?????????

AAAAAARGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! MOABITES ARE NOT LISTED. THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT. SPECIFIC TRIBES ARE LISTED: WHY DO YOU WANT TO ADD THEM TO THIS LIST?????????

You guys really do have a hard time thinking in context and principle don't you!

The reason that those particular tribes are mentioned are because they are the ones that the Lord is going to destroy totally. (Vs.2).

But in vs.4, it is stated why a Hebrew was not allowed to have any marriage with them-they would turn the Hebrews away from their own true God.

So, while the Moabite woman is not mentioned, the principle of why marriage to foreign women remains the same, their clinging to their false gods.

So, again, Ruth was a Mobite woman who converted and thus, could marry a Hebrew man and enter into the congregation of the Hebrews with full rights and privileges.

And I am still waiting for you to explain why Egyptian women were forbidden in Ezra 9:1 if the issue, for marrying foreign women, wasn't their clinging to their false gods.

AAAAAARGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! MOABITES ARE NOT LISTED. THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT. SPECIFIC TRIBES ARE LISTED:

By the way, save the theatrics, it is not my fault you have a problem with your reading and thinking ability.

Second, we saw what God's reason was for not marrying Moabites

Yes, we did, it was because the women had stayed with their false gods, according to their abominations

But there was another reason for the others:

No there wasn't!

Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. Deu 7:4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; .

The same reason from not marrying women from those tribes is given as those as not marrying any foreign women, the taking of the Hebrew men away from the true God.

So, while the Moabite woman is not mentioned, the principle of why marriage to foreign women remains the same, their clinging to their false gods.

Moabites ARE NOT mentioned because they are in their own category.

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.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture and speculation.

And I am still waiting for you to explain why Egyptian women were forbidden in Ezra 9:1 if the issue, for marrying foreign women, wasn't their clinging to their false gods.

It very well could have been that for Egyptians. What's the point?

[So, while the Moabite woman is not mentioned, the principle of why marriage to foreign women remains the same, their clinging to their false gods.]

Moabites ARE NOT mentioned because they are in their own category.

No, the Moabites are not mentioned because they were not to be one of the 7 tribes to be wiped out.

That is what Deut.7:2 is referring to, wiping them out and not making any covenant with them.

It then goes on to explain why they were not to marry their women, the same reason given for marrying any foreign women, they would take Hebrew men away from the true God, as was the case with Solomon.

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. The rest of your post is pure conjecture and speculation.

No, my post is based on what the passages actually say.

Deut. 23 is only referring to the men since it is very clear from the context of the first verses.

Nothing in those verse have anything to do with Moabite women who had no role in hiring Balaam nor in not meeting the Hebrews with meat and water.

No conjecture about it, simple fact,that you would reject so you can justify twisting clear scripture in Ruth.

[ And I am still waiting for you to explain why Egyptian women were forbidden in Ezra 9:1 if the issue, for marrying foreign women, wasn't their clinging to their false gods. ]

It very well could have been that for Egyptians. What's the point?

Well, the point is that Joseph did marry an Egyptian and it was legimate since his sons were taken into the Covenant.

Thus, the issue for Boaz would have been the same, if Ruth had converted, she could be married and taken into the congregration with full rights.

Your constant appeal to Deut.23 doesn't hold up, since it is not referring to women, its' context is the Moabite men.

The issue in marrying any foreign women (as made clear in Deut 7) was whether or not those women converted to the God of Israel or not.

And that holds true for the Ammonite and Moabite women.

Chapter 11 1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: 2 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. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.

You will note that the Bible calls the Moabite women, the 'women of the Moabites'.

You will also note in vs.2 that all of those nations are lumped together as forbidding marriage to unsaved foreign women, including Hittites, who are mentioned in Deut.7.

You have offered no other interpretations, you have just ignored them.

Why don't you read my posts?

You haven't proven that great numbers are needed.

Your theory demands that great numbers of Israelites not return to Palestine.

And those that remained in the land were in the land when the Lord was born, as members of the Northern Tribes.

They were in the land, some in the old Assyrian region and some in Europe. None went to Palestine.

You must show me something that records a return of Israel to become merged with the Jews. Your theory demands low numbers of northern tribes to be merged with Judah, so that today, the 5 million or so Jews are the last remaining seed of Abraham.

All this is to give credence to your position that the reunion prophesied by Hosea must happen in spiritual bodies (the incorruptible) once the dead ove risen for the millennial reign of Christ.

This house of cards only needs one element to be false and the whole thing comes tumbling down. I haven't seen you truly validate any element. Foundational to it, there is no records of Israel returning.

First, it isn't the children of Abraham that is the issue since Abraham had a number of children after Issac as well as Ishmael, who formed the Arab race. So, what you have to do is actually prove something not just talk about it like it was a fact. No tribes left Assyria and settled in Western Europe.

You are correct. The children of Abraham aren't the bloodline. The children of Israel are. The northern kingdom were the children of Israel, and where their blood was passed there is the seed of Abraham.

If the northern tribes did not populate Europe and send their covenant genetics into the Medes and other ancient peoples, they where did they go?

That they merged with Judah would be a fulfillment of Hosea. There is no record. It would have also destroyed the known demographics of the region at that time.

So, where are they? They are the world, after 3 millennia, my friend.

No, the Europeans are not from the 10 tribes. That is what you have to prove not jus assert.

To the extent that any details the happened 3 millennia ago can be "proved", I believe I have "proved" it, that is to say, I have presented enough evidence to make a prima facie case, which you must overcome.

To overcome it you must either show records that the northern tribes returned to Palestine and merged with Judah or explain what happened to them in a way that does not expand their bloodline across the face of the globe in the current day.

All you shown is something from Chronicles, which books cover such a long period (from Adam to circa 539 BC), that pinpoints no time, where specific times are crucial to your argument.

No, what the scriptures say is that those who are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fall under that protection, which no European race does. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to steal something given to the Hebrew by God.

Steal? All we Christians are one with Israel, grafted thereto with all the promise, and covered under the new covenant forged by Christ. What would we have to steal?

The Jews, however, don't believe this, so, from their viewpoint and their's only, would there be reference to "stealing".

There is no such thing as a "European race". If you are not clear about that, what else are you not clear about? Let us get this straight. Any current living person whose bloodline includes the lineage of Abraham, however ancient or current, is the seed of Abraham, whether they know it or not.

They would then come under the covenant of God's promises to Israel. I can see how would cause problems with you Jews, can't you, since that is all you have, not accepting the coming of the Messiah when He came?

And in Romans 9 Paul states that the Jew is still beloved for the fathers sake. And in Romans 11 he warns Gentiles about thinking that they had replaced the Jew.

All of Israel is still beloved for the Father's sake.

Who claims to have replaced the Jews? Today is quite some time since Paul, you agree? We aren't talking about nonIsraelites grafted on the vine of the covenant, we're talking about actual lineages spread out over 3 millennia.

We are talking about the seed of Abraham so widespread that "Jew" has no special meaning in the world, as, I suspect, God intended.

Is that what you have a problem with?

You are assuming that a particular number of Israelites have to present, but that is only an unfounded assumption on your part. All that has to be present is representatives from all the tribes.

I think I have already shown that the original pre-Assyrian population of the ten tribes were not significantly decreased because of economic reasons, among other things.

If, as you say, without any records thereof incidentally, they returned to Palestine and merged with Judah, the know

demographics on the regions would have drastically changed. They didn't, because they are known, and a demographic change like that would have records all over the place. You have not come up with any.

If there were only "representatives from other tribes", what happened to the vast majority of the rest? We are talking about 2,700 years ago, and we are talking a number of indications that at least a portion migrated into Europe.

Explain to me, why wouldn't they have migrated northward, since they were a couple months march from Turkey anyway? Why is that impossible, as you seem to think?

After the Assyrian yoke, it seems like a logical move. So, show how it is even unlikely, not to mention impossible.

You have not proven anything about millions existing in the Northern Kingdom. What has been proven is that by the time the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, its capital had suffered three years of famine and were down to 27,000 people who were deported. So, again, you make up facts as you go along. There is not a shred of historical evidence that there were millions of people in the Northern Kingdom!

The northern kingdom of ten friggin' tribes have always maintained a heavy population, in all and every record we have of their population.

Have you comprehended the "deportation" issue yet? Those were small minority of dissidents who were moved from the land and placed elsewhere, which mean they still existed, and the were 27,000 of them! They rest stayed until Sargon, who them relocated Israel.

I'll keep repeating this until you get it, though it's been at least four times to date.

You can't prove that any forgot who they were.

You can't prove they retained the knowledge, and, since over 3 millennia, they have virtually populated the significant part of the current world (even if none ended up in Europe, which concept you despise), and only the tiny remnants of Judah and Benjamin remember who they were, I'd say that is a very strong presumption that they forgot, don't you?

And none of those verses speak of any Hebrews forgetting that they were Hebrews. They speak of the rejection of their Messiah!

Blindness in part is happened to Israel. The coming of the Messiah, acknowledged or not was no mystery. Only Judah rejected the Christ. Nothing was said about "Hebrews".

Meaning that the Hebrews did not forget that they were Hebrews. The Hebrew Medes were at Pentecost in Acts 2.

The world is inundated with the descendants of Abraham, and few know who they are. Even in the ancient past, when the tribes were worshiping idols and sinning, they were forgetting who they were. By the time they were spread out among other population or migrated and occupied Europe, over 6 centuries, I doubt they even recognized their brotherhood with Judah, as most don't know.

Prove?

Wow, I gave you a direct quote from Tiglath-pileser III's own annals on the prior thread. Are you wasting my time?

You don't know how many were left in that city after the three year siege, certainly not millions!

Millions, in a single city? Don't be silly. But there were 27,000 dissidents deported, which means that was a small percentage of the total population. You said 27,000 was all there was.

First, assimilation occured in that area of the world, not in Europe. Second, while the majority were not deported, nowhere are millions listed as living in the Land after the deportations.

First, this was before the northern tribes were moved to the Medes for their century of Assyrian capture. Migration occurred after that century.

Second, nowhere do we have any census, but we know that the area was prosperous, occupied for generations, has extensive lands in cultivation, and a small percentage of the population were deported as troublemakers, that small percentage being 27,000.

There is nothing recorded that stated any of the 10 tribes rising up to help overthrow the Assyrian empire. Stop pretending there is.

This is the paragraph the above response it to:

"As is recorded, there were some of the norhtern kingdom that joined the southern kingdom for various reasons during the assault on the northern kingdom by the Assyrians, which were disgusted with the idolatrous practices that caused God to give them over to the Assyrians in the first place."

You don't read my posts do you? Why are you wasting my time? This was about there being some other than Judah, Benjamin and Levi in Palestine during the time of Christ, the gal you keep citing.

There is no proof of such a nonsensical claim.

There are a number of English and Welsh words that clearly of Hebrew origin. You got your quote from source that did not explain that, I suppose, or explain it somehow. Anyone can get any validation for their beliefs for anything from the internet.

There are geographical features like the "Danube" and other names of locations that fit with an Israelite past.

But here's what I don't understand. Why do you bark about this so much? Look where many several mixed tribes of Israelites were when the Assyrians fell. They were right below Turkey. Use your commonsense. Why would they go south into the lands of their captors? Why not up into new regions? Explain this impossibility to me.

Also, explain why you find this so offensive. I've asked you this several times and you skip it. I can't help but think that you know you would sound silly and mean if you were to answer honestly.

They were told to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat.15:24)

Exactly. The House of Israel, as distinguished from the House of Judah. Neither one has ever included the other.

A 'point' you have yet to prove.

And a point you have to offer another explanation for, the presumption being that the tribes on the norhtern border of Assyria went north instead of south. You haven't even given a rational for them to head the other way back into the overlords they just got free from.

No, you have no proof that they were in Britain, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. We have proof that they were in the Land when the Lord was born, since they are addressed as the House of Israel.

There is very little "proof" for things that happen millennia ago, but it has been apparent I have more than you have. You still haven't shown any records of the mass of Israel reuniting with Judah in Palestine.

We have writings that indicate that some settled in parts of defeated Assyria, and some went north. You have nothing at all that indicates they reunited with Judah.

But all of the tribes were there as well, since Christ is King of them all.

But you have presented no evidence that doesn't have an equally certain alternate interpretation that makes evidence for the opposite way. This has been academically no evidence at all.

And, you have presented no ancient writings that recorded such an event as Israel returning and reuniting with Judah.

No, nothing you say 'hits home' because it is nothing but empty rhetoric.

Blah, blah, blah.

And whatever attacks his view got were well deserved, as are the attacks on your posts since they are based on nothing but hot air and myth.

Well, I'm just shocked that this is your opinion.

The rage against this theory comes from the fact that is untrue and that it attempts to steal from the Jew what is rightfully his and make the Gentiles something that they aren't-Hebrews.

Not proved untrue, and the alternate not proved true.

Steal? Steal what from them? God's love? You mean someone gets God's love and has it, another doesn't, like some zero sum? If there are brothers under the covenant with the Jews, this means the Jews no longer have God promises under the covenant?

Please explain.

We do not need to be racial brothers to the Jew to aid him, we support him because he is still beloved by God for the 'father's sake' and the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God will bless those that bless the Hebrew has never been rescinded.

My point is, and has always been, so what if we are? What do the Jews lose? Be specific.

No, I am a proponent of the truth, a foreign concept to you B.I. guys.

I already corrected you once, I'm not a "BI" guy, I depart from them on the replacement of Judah as the royal lineage. I will argue some other presumptions, however. Nobody is always right and nobody is always wrong.

The absolute evidence is the fact that whatever numbers of Jews exist are enough for God's purposes.

Your theory, flowing from your belief system, not God's. You have no idea at all how God intends to resolve anything.

It is you that has made assertions that millions of Israelites are needed to complete God's Plan, which is untrue, based on a misreading of Hosea 1.

Wellll, you know, "sands of the sea" and all that. . .

So, since you have no prove of your theory, that no massive numbers of Israelites went anywhere near Western Europe and lost their memory and are now the 'real' Israelites.

The can be no "proof" of either theory 3 millennia after the fact. There can only be fragments that point one way or the other. I simply have presented more fragments than you have and refuted the one you have presented.

You are in a position of just not wanting to believe it, whereas I much less invested; I am in the Body of Christ and under His law and salvation. While I feel sorry for the Jews, I think it's time for them to wake up from this paranoid nightmare they're caught in.

Have not read anything I've said? Give me some evidence that the seeds of Abraham extant in the world are to "replace" Jews. They are all under the same covenant, my confused friend.

NO, what it proves that there were Jews (all members of the 12 tribes0 scattered throughout Europe and Asia Minor. They did not forget who they were and become someone else.

Again, you assume that all the tribes were represented at that time and place, that Israel had returned and merged with Judah. Surely there must be some writing that records that event.

That curse was placed on them as a single people and that was how they were scattered, first the Northern Kingdom and then the Southern, but scattered as a people who were reunited in the land of Israel as a people.

Yet to be reunited as in Israel as a people. You have already agree that Hosea was to take place in the future. Is this another claim that individual people are different than the group name that can only exist by virtue of the membership of those individuals?

They are not a reunited Kingdom yet.

Capitalizing "kingdom" does not lend any more credence to the notion that such is a living thinking entity with a soul rather than just a aggregate label for the people that belong to it.

It's a pretty silly way to avoid the problem of Hosea being fulfilled and explaining Israel returning and merging with Judah, in my opinion. Regardless, such a mass influx of Israelites into Judah would have noteworthy and inspired much writing; the ancient writers that observed the phenomenon would think Hosea was fulfilled.

The Millennial kingdom will definitely have live, flesh and blood people in it

This is your response to this statement of mine. . .

"Oh, yes, you believe that "kingdom" is considered by God as a unique unit having nothing to do with the human beings with souls that compose "it"."

If you don't read my posts, you waste my time and your time.

The point is that the House of Israel was there in the Land.

But you didn't make that point. Here is what you said. . .

"There is no assumption, it is based on fact and Biblical history. The only one with assumptions is you who cannot understand history and the Bible. Those 10 tribes were back in Israel after the deportation as seen by Anna being there and the House of Israel being mentioned by both the Lord and Peter."

Here is this Anna gal again. Don't you think with such a massive influx of non-Judah Israelites, there would be more, just by sheer numbers?

Also, consider, the writer of the scripture though it worth it to point out she was not of Judah, Benjamin or Levi. This must be because if he didn't, readers would assume she was of one of those three tribes. Why distinguish? Because there was only Judah where she was.

They do not believe that the 12 tribes disappeared, since it is acknowledged the term 'Jew' refers to members of all of the tribes.

Who, specifically acknowledges that? Beyond, I mean, those who already believe in your rap, and where are the records that describe that event, convincing them with first causes and not a prior belief that needs the notion to remain a viable belief?

No, Christians believe that Jew means everyone from the 12 tribes.

I'm a Christian and I don't believe it, nor am I what you call a "B.I.". I know others in the same condition that don't believe it.

Nevertheless, I believe a great many Christians believe it. I also believe that each one has never witnessed the lack of evidence for it and would disbelieve it if they were forced, like I am forcing you, to examine those beliefs.

Except, of course, those, like you, that want and must believe it.

No, provide some contrary proof and it goes away-but since you have none, it stands as a fact.

You know, I read something like this, after numerous postings where I have presented, more than once, evidence and reasoning, and explained in detail the logical and historical fallacies of your statements of belief with little or no return from you.

I am forced to think you are insecure in your certainty, feeling that you have to use strategy and technique instead of fact and rational conclusions to "win" an argument. We are supposed to be searching for the truth here. You don't search for truth with strategy and technique.

You don't know how many people of the 10 tribes survived the Assyrian invasions.

Of course I don't know it and neither do you. I can reason it out pretty well from known information, and have. You apparently haven't been able to reason an lower numbers yourself.

What great revelation is this? We know that the Assyrians moved people around. So where is your proof that there were millions of Israelites in Assyria if only a fraction were deported?

The revelation is that your previous position that most of Israel was killed by the Assyrians was false.

Again, do the math. If a tiny fraction were moved away from there home as troublemakers, and such are always a tiny fraction in any population, ancient or modern, and that number was 27,000.

If the 27,000 was as high as 10%, the total population in that one area would be 270,000. but it was most likely 3% which would be 900,000 in that one area.

Like I said, Do the same math for the regions occupied by the 10 tribes.

Samaria was under siege for three years, which means quite a few did die!

Many people don't die during a siege. Many people die during an armed conflict.

Not during a three year siege when everyone is starving.

That's the purpose of a siege. When people are starving, the object of the siege surrenders.

Proof?

As presented, much more than your proof Israel returned to Palestine and merged with Judah. Since we already know the demographics of Palestine during that period, that assumption is silly.

Since that assumption can't be made with any credibility, you have yet to answer the question, where did they all go?

Nice little story. Proof?

The essence of proof is the time period that passed between the fall of Assyria and the birth of Christ. We know that and I have told you.

read this very slowly-YOU HAVE NO NUMBERS.

But I have the mathematical means to translate known facts into numbers. I just did the math, since you couldn't or wouldn't do it yourself, above in this post.

I haven't seen you show anything that constitutes proof that Israel returned to Palestine and merged with Judah.

The promise was made to the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and no other. When Jews intermarried, they did not form a new race, and forget who they were. They formed a mixed race, such as the Samartians, who mixed with the Israelites who had not been deported.

And every yield of intermarriage, whether it be in Europe, the Middle East or anywhere else is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But you were saying the Israelite didn't forget who they were.

Well, the B.I. theory is that the 10 tribes moved as a unit into Europe. The bloodline to remain Hebrew has to be through Issac and Jacob as well. That is why Ishmael is not in the promise 'bloodline' even though he is a son of Abraham.

Well as I told you before, I don't subscribe to every little detail of the "British Israelites".

Who mentioned Ishmael? The Israelites were through Issac and Jacob. What are you talking about?

Are you not reading my posts again? If you're not going to, why don't you tell me so I won't waste my time, even though you would be acknowledging that you're just a trained performer with no though behind his tricks.

You haven't stated one fact that supports your kook theory. You have done nothing but assert without any evidence the notion that the Israelites had to be in the millions and then went into Western Europe and forgot they were Hebrews. You have no evidence regarding the numbers of Israelites who went into Assyria and were left in the land. Your entire thesis is nothing but question begging and if it were handed to any history teacher he would throw it back at you with an F!

Blah, blah, blah. Again, you obviously haven't read my posts, nor have you responded to my requests.

I have supplied two major printed works, one in the history of Assyria and one on Israel, both of which reject your claims.

But neither did. One even sought to claim that 27,000 Israleiteswere all there was in Samaria when Sargon relocated the Israelites even though that number were miscreants deported from the larger population by Tiglath-pileser III. This was in his annals, from the the Assyrian tablets, which you historians had never accessed!

I grant you are a Christian, but even knowing that being a Christian must, by its very nature, be conservative, you argue like a liberal.

It is you who has to prove that the Europeans are really Israelites.

I can indicate with evidence that that theory of disposition is likely, for events 3 millennia ago. But you haven't even done that.

You have relied on a consensus opinion of a sect, and have offered no evidence whatsoever that the Jews also included the the northern tribes. I have already given three citations from Study Bibles and a Commentary regarding Hosea, including Bullinger's note on it. So, the view that Hosea 1 refers to a future event is seen a number of theologians.

I read very carefully your posts, unlike you do mine, and I don't see any linkage. I could see how, if you wanted to believe that Hosea would be fulfilled after Christ returns, you could see it that way, by only by prior conviction. None of the text compels that interpretation of itself.

Maybe you should explain instead of just posting some text.

Jeremiah 30:7 is referring to the Tribulation period. Jer.31 refers to the Millennial reign. The scripture is clear on it.

The scripture is anything but clear on it, and it has nothing to do with Hosea's prophecy. This impression is something you put on it from your prior convictions. And there are any number of knowledgeable people who would argue against it, and have done so on this very thread.

None of this stuff is cut and dry. Everybody has an opinion and make a case. You talk like it is universally accepted. The article of this thread is an example.

Well, if that were the case, then the prophecy in verse 11 wouldn't be fulfilled now would it. Verses 10 and 11 go together, so the mutipication of Israel coincides with the Millennial reign and peace on earth.

Goodness. There is nothing in Hosea 1:10-11 that says anything about the millennial reign of Christ. Neither you nor anyone else knows how the reign will come down or where Christians will be in the tribulation, nor even the material manifestation of the tribulation.

Yes, they were wrong, including the Apostles who rebuked Christ when He said He had to be crucified. They were wrong because they didn't believe what the scriptures said and that is why Christ rebuked those who were walking on the road to Emmaus (Lk.24: 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

No doubt Christ would rebuke you in your myriad assumptions, too. You probably won't even recognize the tribulation when it happens, looking for something metaphysical.

I'll give you a for instance. Bible: Men will beg for death and shall not be able to find it. Unconscious people on life support equipment right now may well be begging for death but that equipment just purrs right along denying them that release.

This may be fanciful or it may not, but it is an indication you have no idea how the tribulation will play out in the real world.

There is no plates that state any such thing about those Israelite deportee's moving anywhere.

There are plates of people giving homage to the Assyrian king, whose dress show he was Israelite, and of peoples moving past outposts that showed Israelite dress, in this case a robe of a priest.

It isn't the seed of Abraham that is the issue, it is the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. <{> And they have not spread out anywhere except as Jews.

Of course, I mean the descendants of Israel, Huckleberry, what the hell else would I be talking about.

Millions? Proof?

Already, more than once, I have given you evidence and the math. Of course, these things happened almost 3 millenia ago. I think there is enough evidence to make a reasonable man think, but not one invested in his belief system.

You shown no proof that the Israelites merged with Judah. More than one ancient writer should have been moved to record that. Where is it?

Your view of Hosea is based on an unproven assumption that millions of Israelites existed during the Assyrian captivity and yet, there is no historical record of them and where they went.

I think there is a good case for it, and I think I have made it. The only other alternative explanation is that all these Israelite returned from Assyria and joined Judah in Palestine. You have certainly given no evidence for that. As I said such an event would have been written of by more than one ancient writer.

No, the scripture is very clear in those passages.

They are clear when you approach them with a prior belief system to impose on them. You can go out to the Bible and always find something to interpret to support any belief. the Catholic are particularly bad about this.

The meaning must be imposed on the unconditioned mind from its very words, and on any mind that reads them. Your cites don't.

But there is no scripture that supports your view that the Israelites would forget who they were and would become other nations.

There is no scripture that supports a return of Israelites from Assyria and reunited with Judah, and there would certainly be had it happened.

I think I have put up enough evidence and logical conclusions to indicate that much, if not most, of the world's nation is composed of the seeds of Abraham (and Issac and Joseph, if you insist).

Actually, the setup for Hosea is now, and, as I pointed out about the tribulation, the actual fulfilling of Hosea may not be recognizable to those who expect wild miracles and metaphysical manifestations.

Israelite 'garb' you mean robes, which were worn by everyone in the Mideast?

No. I mean robes unique to Israelite priests. And, I have no doubt that there were many that still remembered the old customs and practiced them. You keep forgetting we are talking abut 6 centuries from that point. A lot happens in 6 centuries, dear.

Oh, yes it is, it as a race that is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and follows a very particular blood line.

Israelite is a religion, is not a race. Passed by blood or not. Anyone can convert to being a Israelite or a Jew. Many have. We have many Jews that are descended from Khazar converts.

You can be so entertaining at times. Not much, though.

No, because to prove one is a Jew all one has to show is that one is in that racial lineage. All 12 tribes, no matter what the mixture would still be considered racial Jews. They don't have to be 'pure' Jew, but they have to have some Jewish blood, which most Gentiles do not have.

But you said the Jews don't know who they are.

And then the descendants of Israelites don't have to be "pure" Israelite to bring Hosea to pass, either.

He wrote to the 12 tribes and he knew that they existed in the Roman Empire as Jews.

And he said this where? This is another passage you cite that has equally valid alternate interpretation, (the other the tribes were know about but no in the region with Judah) especially since no ancient writing at all records a reuniting of the Assyrian Israelites and Judah.

And you have some proof of that? Do you have any proof that Israel return from Assyria and merged with Judah?

Ofcourse he was talking about Jews, that is why he called them the 12 tribes. He could have called them the Israelites and the Jews, but instead he called them the 12 tribes.

Not reading my posts again. My response you're answering above was about Peter saying all of the House of Israel should know that the Judah crucified Jesus.

Not before 1Ki.12 it wasn't.

After Israel separated into two kingdoms, they are forever distinguished from one another.

First, you will note that in Josephus that those in Media are called Jews.

No, he didn't. . .

"So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased;"

Isn't it apparent that the sentence you are referring to is a continuation of "So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there;"

Never said the House of Israel referred to both, only that Jew did. The house of Israel when mentioned does refer to the Northern Kingdom and is referred to by the Lord and Peter as being in the Land.

Jesus and Peter did not refer to them being in the Land (by which you mean in Palestine). Reproduce the versus that specified that here.

You are saying that the House of Judah (known as the Jews) include the House of Israel. Not hardly. You still haven't cited any ancient writing that records Israel being merged with Judah.

There are no genealogical records of any tribe left.

Ask a Jew, and when he says what tribe he belongs to tell he's wrong because there are no records. Tell me his reaction.

Do it, or stop talking about it.

There is clearly some indicator that points out a Jew in the DNA.

No. There's not. Those who purport to have matching software won't release their algorithms. I tried. There is no documentation at all, and the notion of identification of genetic linkages after 3 millennia, especially with all the mixtures during those millennia, there cannot be. Just people trying to plug holes like you are.

And could any Jew prove it what tribe he was from without a break in his genealogy?

Why not ask, then get back to me.

I have been impressed by your ability to beg the question. You state that there were millions of Israelites when the Northern Kingdom fell. Prove-None. You state that those same millions of Israelites formed the Western nations-prove. None. Your entire theory is based on no one provable fact.

The best you can do with events this old is make reasonable conclusion on the limited data. I have done that.

Your only explanation to the northern tribes disappearance is that they merged with Judah. You haven't produced any writings or records of that event. You and I know such an event would have been recorded, probably by more than one ancient writer.

There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states anything about how many Israelites there you. You are blowing smoke. The published work on Assyria by an expert on the subject stated the opposite,that no one knows what happened to those tribes.

But there is enough data to make reasonable conclusions, as I made above. You have yet to produce support for your theory.

There are lots of works published on Assyria. Your "expert" apparently didn't consult an important resource.

And that would mean that there were not many left now were there. In fact, Assyria had to import other tribes to make sure the land was inhabited. (2Ki.17).

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. The majority were left. I discussed this above.

Assyria traded deported dissidents from one area to another, for obvious reasons. that practice is well used in history.

The population was depleted from war and invasion. And you have no idea how many people were left. And stop pretending that you do. You pull numbers out of nowhere. Israel could have well been down in the thousands, not the millions.

Prove it.

I can do the math based on the probable percentage of dissidents deported, as I did above. "Could well have been" could be equal to "could well have been" millions, but the math done with population and know data suggests the latter. You have no data at all to suggest the former.

And do you have any actual proof of this as well? I never saw one individual make up so much history in my life. You do not know how high the losses were, or even how many people Israel had before the invasions. Try putting that into a thesis for a history teacher and see how far that would fly.

I have evidence that points toward a conclusion. Do you?

If you have to accept large numbers of northern tribes, your whole construct falls.

Is that why Samaria was able to hold out for three years against the greatest military of it's day? You are just one assertion after another without a shred of any actual facts.

They held out against a siege. This is known. Actual battle would have taken the toll you need to have for your theory.

Have you read the translations of the Taylor prism?

The fact is that you do not know the population that was deported. And you have stated that deportations only happened to the malcontents, now you are saying they happen to the entire population? You have not a single shred of evidence of how many people ended up in Media and how many were left in the Land. I think a person that deliberately tries to confuse events has little real support for his belief. Again, this is how liberals argue.

This is probably the fifth time I've explained this. For about 20 years (around 745 to around 721) the northern tribes were besieged by the then Assyrian king. His policy were to deport troublemakers from their home area to another, and import from other areas to that one.

Dissidents deported this was will be, as evidenced by other populations of malcontents, a small percentage of the whole population.

In about 721, the new king, Sargon, gathered up, over time, the whole population of northern Israelites and moved them to Assyria's northern border among the Medians. Look at some maps of the ancient region. He placed them in Median cities. Look at a map to get a sense of how large the Medes was.

Yes, and from the quotes, it appears that the entire population of Sameria was deported and it was only 27,000. So your quotes prove my thesis not yours. And once again, we know that the tribes were deported, so you aren't telling us anything we don't already know. What you need to quote is a passage that tells us that millions of Israelites were deported.

Are you dense?

The fact is that millions of Israelites were not deported and then moved somewhere else. Those who were born in those nations they were deported to, either remained there or returned to the Land.

The fact is they were, by reasonable extrapolation of known population numbers. I believe it was you that posted a verse that said they were placed among the Medians. The Assyrian records themselves state that.

If they returned to the "Land" there would be records of it. If some stayed in the Assyrian land and made cities, which there are Assyrian records of letters the (then) collapsing authority complaining of them successfully repelling tribute collectors, and some moving north (look on a map where Media was located), over nearly 3 millennia they would have virtually covered the globe with seeds of Abraham (and, as you insist, Issac and Jacob).

Just the 6 centuries from the fall of Nineveh and final collapse of the Assyrian empire allowed time to spread and forget who they were.

Six centuries is 24 generations, 2700 years is 108 generations. To give you a benchmark of population growth, did you know that between 1950 and 2000 the population of the Middle East quadrupled? And is expected to double by 2050?

The number of children in a family was vastly greater at the time we are talking about, and the average in modern times was about 4 offspring per.

After Sargon moved the northern tribes to the Medes, they stayed there for about a century, 4 generations.

The known data and reasonable population growths lean against your theory.

I am using the merging of both Israel and Judah because that is what happened and the word Jew refers to all of the tribes of Israel, not just Judah.

You have shown now records of it. And a reasonable extrapolation of population growth precludes it. What else do you have to offer?

What you have to prove is that they went somewhere as a people and became someone else.

I think I've made a good case for it. What have you proved? For events this old, we can only make reasonable assumptions, which I have, and which you have not.

So once again you have cited irrelevant facts which do not give any credence to your view that the Israelite went anywhere as a people. They reproduced and dispersed as Jews, not as Gentiles.

Prove it.

No, they could have remained in the land where they were born, just as many did when the Southern tribes returned from the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, many were visiting on Pentecost in Acts 2. Many Jews remain in America today and are not in Israel. So once again, you make an unfounded assertion.

But they didn't. The northern tribes were moved to the Medes in 721. In 612 Nineveh was destroyed and Assyria fell as an empire. About 590 Judah was captured by the Babylonians. that was 20 years later and the northern tribes were not there. In 550 Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and let Judah go back to the Land (as you call it). The northern tribes were not there.

I'm at a loss as to when you think they returned and merged with Judah.

With the reasonable conclusion from the data and known facts, and the time spans involved, the presumption must be that the major part, or the majority, of the world's population trace their heritage back to Abraham on Issac's side, and therefore are heirs to God's promises under the old covenant.

European and Middle Eastern.

And if they were left in the Land, they would have been there when the Lord was born. So what happened to the 10 tribes in Assyria is irrelevant to the fact that all 12 tribes existed in Israel at the time of Christ's birth. You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented.

Assyria and Media is not the "Land". Turkey and northern Europe is not the "Land". It is recorded history that many of the Sumarians were from other populations moved there by the Assyrian authority.

Your statement is based on assumptions you have not presented an incontrovertible evidence or logic for. There were no populations of norther tribes in Palestine, and you have no records by ancient writers that even mention such an event.

You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented.

Then you would have to explain the vast numbers missing from your theory.

And a while back you were saying that only the trouble makers were deported, so now it is everyone?

Goodness, haven't you gotten that there were numbers of deportation during the siege of northern Israel, for 20 years, and one vast move of all the northern tribes to Media?

Movement to Turkey is not the issue, it is the movement into Western Europe. No one has any problem with Israelites moving around that area of the world, since they are all found there as Jews. So, your outpost sightings and trackings have nothing to do with the B.I. theory which states that millions of Israelites moved into Western Europe and forgot that they were Hebrews.

Movement to Turkey and then stop there? In 6 centuries? Not reasonable.

For the northern tribes to have been known as Jews, you have to provided some ancient writings that record that event.

You still don't seem to have a sense of the time spans involved.

I have investigated them enough to know that there are none that supports your view.

Specifically what tablet translation did you examine? You didn't even know they existed until I told you. And, as an aside, there are no tablets, cylinders or prisms among that 23,000 collection the mentions anything at all about the northern tribes going back south to Palestine.

You have not a shred of evidence that those people went anywhere near Western Europe.

I have, and I have presented it, on prior posts and on this one.

And I have already posted a refutation of that canard.

No, you haven't. You just said no, it's not, and posted some ambiguous statement off the internet. Anyone can find anything on the internet. All you have to do is look at the region and the names of Geographical features, without both hands over your eyes, of course.

First, you have not given a single verse of scripture to support you contention that the Hebrews were ever to forget their heritage.

I don't have to. Population dynamics and historical facts postulate most of the world's population can trace their bloodline back to Israel. Individuals today know nothing about it.

God will reveal it, and He may even now be in that process, hence this very controversy. God does not work instantly.

Second, what makes you think that they went anywhere.

Already have shown you numerous times, and you attempts to refute it have been weak.

Josephus, whom you cited, states they are still in those lands when he wrote.

Above I clearly show your misreading of that excerpt.

What I hate are liars.

Just so. You seem filled with hate to me, just from the gratuitous comments you make. It blinds you.

Your theory that the Gentiles are really the Israelites is simply myth, with not a single solid fact to support it.

Those who have ancestors that were members of the northern tribes would not be gentiles, would they?

Actually, the merging of Israel and Judah is made clear in the usage of the word 'Jew' which stands now for all tribes. The Biblical evidence supports the fact that all the 12 tribes were in the Land when the Lord was born and are addressed as the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The historical evidence supports me since Josephus refers to the House of Israel still in the former Assyrian lands, they had not gone anywhere.

I've already presented the origin of the label "Jew". It is limited to the House of Judah.

You have no biblical evidence except what I have proved is ambiguous. You keep throwing it at me like repetition equals truth.

I've already discussed Josephus misreading above.

I've looked over the rest from here and I've already discussed it above, or in prior posts. Do you have anything new?

I have to say thanks for providing the forum to get all this out, and I have been motivated by you to uncover much else. the notion of the northern tribes being merged with Judah has been floating around out there for a long time. It is educational to know how lacking in foundation it is.

I search for the truth. Do you?

[You have offered no other interpretations, you have just ignored them.]

Why don't you read my posts?

Yes, and you haven't given a single fact in any of them.

[ You haven't proven that great numbers are needed. ]

Your theory demands that great numbers of Israelites not return to Palestine.

So, we know that Israelites were spread throughout the entire world-as Jews.

[ And those that remained in the land were in the land when the Lord was born, as members of the Northern Tribes. ]

They were in the land, some in the old Assyrian region and some in Europe. None went to Palestine.

And you know that how?

If they were left in the Land, they were there during the times of Christ.

You must show me something that records a return of Israel to become merged with the Jews. Your theory demands low numbers of northern tribes to be merged with Judah, so that today, the 5 million or so Jews are the last remaining seed of Abraham.

I don't have to show you anything.

What the facts are very clear, the remaining seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still in existance as Jews.

It is you that have to prove that the numbers are relevant.

Once again, you are begging the question

All this is to give credence to your position that the reunion prophesied by Hosea must happen in spiritual bodies (the incorruptible) once the dead ove risen for the millennial reign of Christ.

See, it is you that do not read my posts.

I have told you that reunion will occur in physical bodies, not spiritual.

Or, maybe it is the fact that you cannot argue anything unless you set up a straw man first.

This house of cards only needs one element to be false and the whole thing comes tumbling down. I haven't seen you truly validate any element. Foundational to it, there is no records of Israel returning.

Ofcourse there is, you just won't acknowledge the evidence.

The house of Israel was present in the Land, as stated clearly by Christ and Peter.

The visitors mentioned in Acts 2 were from lands that the 10 tribes had been deported to.

[ First, it isn't the children of Abraham that is the issue since Abraham had a number of children after Issac as well as Ishmael, who formed the Arab race. So, what you have to do is actually prove something not just talk about it like it was a fact. No tribes left Assyria and settled in Western Europe. ]

You are correct. The children of Abraham aren't the bloodline. The children of Israel are. The northern kingdom were the children of Israel, and where their blood was passed there is the seed of Abraham.

That is correct, and that bloodline is not found in the Western Europeans, except as Jews.

[ If the northern tribes did not populate Europe and send their covenant genetics into the Medes and other ancient peoples, they where did they go? ]

The Jews were spread through the entire globe as part of the Disaporsa.

That includes both the Northern and Southern tribes who were again dispersed after the Romans destroyed Jerusalam.

So, the Jew is in all nations, but they are there as Jews, not another race who forgot who they were.

That they merged with Judah would be a fulfillment of Hosea. There is no record. It would have also destroyed the known demographics of the region at that time.

Because it will happen in the future.

So, where are they? They are the world, after 3 millennia, my friend.

First, I am not your friend.

Second, they are all over the world, and are known as Jews.

That was the punishment told would happen to them in Deut 28.

[ No, the Europeans are not from the 10 tribes. That is what you have to prove not jus assert. ]

To the extent that any details the happened 3 millennia ago can be "proved", I believe I have "proved" it, that is to say, I have presented enough evidence to make a prima facie case, which you must overcome.

No, you actually have to have some prove not cry about how long it was!

If you don't have any hard evidence, what you have is mere conjecture unsupported by any facts.

Wouldn't hold up as a history thesis or a court of law.

To overcome it you must either show records that the northern tribes returned to Palestine and merged with Judah or explain what happened to them in a way that does not expand their bloodline across the face of the globe in the current day.

That has been shown by the fact that in 2Chron. those same tribes are mentioned as still being in the land even after the deportation.

The Jews are considered today as composing all 12 tribes.

When Ezra returned to the Land, he made an offering for all of the 12 tribes not just 2.

All you shown is something from Chronicles, which books cover such a long period (from Adam to circa 539 BC), that pinpoints no time, where specific times are crucial to your argument.

Well, you better go reread it, since that event happens after the deportation by the Assyrians, not before.

So, clearly, those tribes were still in the land and were recognized as being there.

What you have to prove is that they all left the land, which is very unlikely.

[ No, what the scriptures say is that those who are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fall under that protection, which no European race does. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to steal something given to the Hebrew by God. ]

Steal? All we Christians are one with Israel, grafted thereto with all the promise, and covered under the new covenant forged by Christ. What would we have to steal?

You are trying to steal the physical promises, the covenants.

The Christian has spiritual promises made to him which deal with heavenly, not earthly rewards.

No Christian need be concerned about having any Israelite blood in him, what he needs is the Blood of Christ covering him.

The Jews, however, don't believe this, so, from their viewpoint and their's only, would there be reference to "stealing".

The Jews are under blindness until the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in (Rom.11).

After that, then the Rapture occurs and then the Tribulation (which you B.I. guys deny) and then the Millennial reign of Christ, ruling from Jerusalem over the reunited 12 tribes (Ezek.34, 48)

There is no such thing as a "European race". If you are not clear about that, what else are you not clear about? Let us get this straight. Any current living person whose bloodline includes the lineage of Abraham, however ancient or current, is the seed of Abraham, whether they know it or not.

Oh, so now there are no races?

Well, no one but the Hebrew/Arabic's contain the bloodline of Abraham.

Christians are spiritual sons of Abraham, not the physical ones.

They would then come under the covenant of God's promises to Israel. I can see how would cause problems with you Jews, can't you, since that is all you have, not accepting the coming of the Messiah when He came?

The Gentiles come under the promises of God by relationship with the Jew, not as Jews.

Try to grasp the difference.

[ And in Romans 9 Paul states that the Jew is still beloved for the fathers sake. And in Romans 11 he warns Gentiles about thinking that they had replaced the Jew. All of Israel is still beloved for the Father's sake. ]

Who claims to have replaced the Jews? Today is quite some time since Paul, you agree? We aren't talking about nonIsraelites grafted on the vine of the covenant, we're talking about actual lineages spread out over 3 millennia.

We are talking spiritually not physically.

The physical children of Abraham are identified by the mid-eastern DNA.

We are talking about the seed of Abraham so widespread that "Jew" has no special meaning in the world, as, I suspect, God intended. Is that what you have a problem with?

I have a problem with you inventing things.

The Jew is one who is under the Convenant promises of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The other children of Abraham form the Arabs,as was prophecied as well.

So, a Jew is the only who can make any claim to the inheritances promised to Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

[ You are assuming that a particular number of Israelites have to present, but that is only an unfounded assumption on your part. All that has to be present is representatives from all the tribes. ]

I think I have already shown that the original pre-Assyrian population of the ten tribes were not significantly decreased because of economic reasons, among other things.

And that is meaningless to anything.

Do you just talk to hear yourself talk?

If, as you say, without any records thereof incidentally, they returned to Palestine and merged with Judah, the know demographics on the regions would have drastically changed. They didn't, because they are known, and a demographic change like that would have records all over the place. You have not come up with any.

Once again, you are asserting what you need to prove.

First you cry that there are no records and then you claim your thesis is valid because there is no record of a certain large number of Israelites coming into the Land.

The fact is that all that was necessary was that be representives from the 12 tribes present.

As for the other Israelites, they considered themselves as Jews and were dispersed throughout the world, including Europe, but did not become someone else or spread their bloodline so that everyone is now a physical decendent of Abraham.

If there were only "representatives from other tribes", what happened to the vast majority of the rest? We are talking about 2,700 years ago, and we are talking a number of indications that at least a portion migrated into Europe.

They are all around you-as Jews.

Don't forget that they have had gone through a few persecutions in history which diminished their numbers.

What is a fact is that the Northern Kingdom 'bloodline' hasn't been spread throughout the world.

That can be easily proven with DNA testing.

Explain to me, why wouldn't they have migrated northward, since they were a couple months march from Turkey anyway? Why is that impossible, as you seem to think?

Because there would be some record of it.

You just think people moved that far without some record of it?

And no one questions that the Europe had Jews in it, so why it is your constant contention that the Northern tribes had to be the ones that went into Western Europe when we know that the Jews were in fact there.

After the Assyrian yoke, it seems like a logical move. So, show how it is even unlikely, not to mention impossible.

Now, what seems more likely is that they stayed where they were or returned home to Israel.

What you have to prove (but can't) is that they did migrate West as a people, not a few individuals.

[ You have not proven anything about millions existing in the Northern Kingdom. What has been proven is that by the time the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, its capital had suffered three years of famine and were down to 27,000 people who were deported. So, again, you make up facts as you go along. There is not a shred of historical evidence that there were millions of people in the Northern Kingdom! ]

The northern kingdom of ten friggin' tribes have always maintained a heavy population, in all and every record we have of their population.

You have no records, and you have admitted as much!

The Northern Kingdom was under judgement and by the time they were deported, they were a shell of their former selves.

History demands facts, not wishes.

Prove what you are asserting with some actual numbers.

The number we do have is 27,000 deported-that's it.

And we have some left behind as shown in 2Chronicles.

Have you comprehended the "deportation" issue yet? Those were small minority of dissidents who were moved from the land and placed elsewhere, which mean they still existed, and the were 27,000 of them! They rest stayed until Sargon, who them relocated Israel.

Hey, the 27,000 were deported under Sargon.

Get your facts straight!

So, the numbers we do have only have 27,000 deported after a 3 year siege which would have greatly reduced the population.

There are no 'millions' anywhere noted.

I'll keep repeating this until you get it, though it's been at least four times to date.

And you keep repeating an error.

It is Sargon who deports the 27,000 from the capital of Samaria after a three siege.

Get your facts right.

[ You can't prove that any forgot who they were. ]

You can't prove they retained the knowledge, and, since over 3 millennia, they have virtually populated the significant part of the current world (even if none ended up in Europe, which concept you despise), and only the tiny remnants of Judah and Benjamin remember who they were, I'd say that is a very strong presumption that they forgot, don't you?

I don't have to prove anything.

We have the Jews who do know who they are.

You have to prove that an entire population forgot their spiritual heritage-which you cannot do.

The onus is on you, not me.

[ And none of those verses speak of any Hebrews forgetting that they were Hebrews. They speak of the rejection of their Messiah! ]

Blindness in part is happened to Israel. The coming of the Messiah, acknowledged or not was no mystery. Only Judah rejected the Christ. Nothing was said about "Hebrews".

Peter points out that it was the 'house of Israel' that crucified their Messiah, so it does indeed refer to all 12 tribes, not just 2.

[ Meaning that the Hebrews did not forget that they were Hebrews. The Hebrew Medes were at Pentecost in Acts 2. ]

The world is inundated with the descendants of Abraham, and few know who they are. Even in the ancient past, when the tribes were worshiping idols and sinning, they were forgetting who they were. By the time they were spread out among other population or migrated and occupied Europe, over 6 centuries, I doubt they even recognized their brotherhood with Judah, as most don't know.

Well, that would be nice if you could actually prove it.

We can tell now from DNA what our racial backgrounds are, and Western Europeans are not Mid-eastern.

[ Prove? ]

Wow, I gave you a direct quote from Tiglath-pileser III's own annals on the prior thread. Are you wasting my time?

You gave me nothing that proved what you are trying to prove.

You are just blowing smoke, but up irrelevent data which was already known.

As for wasting time, all of your posts have been nothing but a waste of time.

[ You don't know how many were left in that city after the three year siege, certainly not millions! ]

Millions, in a single city? Don't be silly. But there were 27,000 dissidents deported, which means that was a small percentage of the total population. You said 27,000 was all there was.

Which means the rest were left and not deported.

I said that the 27,000 represented a small number if you were talking about millions of people.

So, you admit that millions were not deported, and only a small percentage.

[ First, assimilation occured in that area of the world, not in Europe. Second, while the majority were not deported, nowhere are millions listed as living in the Land after the deportations. ]

First, this was before the northern tribes were moved to the Medes for their century of Assyrian capture. Migration occurred after that century. Second, nowhere do we have any census, but we know that the area was prosperous, occupied for generations, has extensive lands in cultivation, and a small percentage of the population were deported as troublemakers, that small percentage being 27,000.

Yes, after the three years of seige.

So, the majority of people were left in the Land, and were not deported and thus were not in Assyria.

[ There is nothing recorded that stated any of the 10 tribes rising up to help overthrow the Assyrian empire. Stop pretending there is. ]

This is the paragraph the above response it to: "As is recorded, there were some of the norhtern kingdom that joined the southern kingdom for various reasons during the assault on the northern kingdom by the Assyrians, which were disgusted with the idolatrous practices that caused God to give them over to the Assyrians in the first place."

And where is this recorded?

Stop your smoke and mirrors!

There is nothing in any Assyrian record that talks about the uprising of the 10 tribes, and you know it.

You don't read my posts do you? Why are you wasting my time? This was about there being some other than Judah, Benjamin and Levi in Palestine during the time of Christ, the gal you keep citing.

Oh, I have read the posts and you never give a single actual certifiable fact that supports your thesis.

It is all, 'I think this' and 'this had to happen'-hot air.

The 'gal I keep citing' I am not citing any gal.

What gal is that?

[ There is no proof of such a nonsensical claim. ]

There are a number of English and Welsh words that clearly of Hebrew origin. You got your quote from source that did not explain that, I suppose, or explain it somehow. Anyone can get any validation for their beliefs for anything from the internet.

Hey, every language has a combination of different influences from it.

That is no proof of anything.

There are geographical features like the "Danube" and other names of locations that fit with an Israelite past.

More irevelant nonsence.

I will post a post regarding the issue of languages and names later.

But here's what I don't understand. Why do you bark about this so much? Look where many several mixed tribes of Israelites were when the Assyrians fell. They were right below Turkey. Use your commonsense. Why would they go south into the lands of their captors? Why not up into new regions? Explain this impossibility to me.

And it is clear that you don't understand alot of things!

The fact is that you cannot prove what you are asserting, so stop trying to make things up.

I don't have to explain the impossibility to you since there is no record that it happened.

You have to show that it did happen, that is what history is about.

What you are dealing in is myth.

I don't have to show that a myth is impossible, only that it is a myth.

Also, explain why you find this so offensive. I've asked you this several times and you skip it. I can't help but think that you know you would sound silly and mean if you were to answer honestly.

It is offensive because it is false.

And I have explained that to you several times, but you clearly do not read my posts.

[ They were told to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat.15:24) ]

Exactly. The House of Israel, as distinguished from the House of Judah. Neither one has ever included the other.

Yes and Christ went to them and they were in the Land.

Christ never left Israel in His missionary activity.

So, when He went to the 'lost sheep of the House of Israel' He went to them in Israel.

And they were 'lost' in the sense that they were sheep without a shepard.

[ A 'point' you have yet to prove. ]

And a point you have to offer another explanation for, the presumption being that the tribes on the norhtern border of Assyria went north instead of south. You haven't even given a rational for them to head the other way back into the overlords they just got free from.

They didn't have to go anywhere, they could have stayed right where they were.

That is where Josephus says they were in his day, in those same lands.

So, it is you that keep asserting that they traveled somewhere instead of being assilimated.

[ No, you have no proof that they were in Britain, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. We have proof that they were in the Land when the Lord was born, since they are addressed as the House of Israel. ]

There is very little "proof" for things that happen millennia ago, but it has been apparent I have more than you have. You still haven't shown any records of the mass of Israel reuniting with Judah in Palestine.

Once again, I never said that Israel 'reunited' with Judah, only that they were in the Land with those from the Southern tribes and were known collectively as Jews.

Stop dealing in straw men.

You cannot think outside your own limited, false paradigm.

We have writings that indicate that some settled in parts of defeated Assyria, and some went north. You have nothing at all that indicates they reunited with Judah.

Never said that they 'reunited' with Judah, only that all 12 tribes were present in the Land.

They will be reunited as a Kingdom in the Millennium.

Deal with what I actually say and not what you think I am saying.

[ But all of the tribes were there as well, since Christ is King of them all. ]

But you have presented no evidence that doesn't have an equally certain alternate interpretation that makes evidence for the opposite way. This has been academically no evidence at all.

Yes I have presented evidence that they were present in the Land as the House of Israel.

You have no evidence that they went anywhere, except your vivid imignation.

And, you have presented no ancient writings that recorded such an event as Israel returning and reuniting with Judah.

And once again, you are assuming (straw man) that an event has to take place, as is prophecied by Hosea.

But no event took place, so I do not need to prove anything.

What is a fact is that all 12 tribes were in the land as a people since they were no longer a Kingdom.

So, once again your failure lies in the inablity to think clearly and deal with facts and not conjecture.

[ No, nothing you say 'hits home' because it is nothing but empty rhetoric. ]

Blah, blah, blah.

Exactly-that is all you have been doing is blabbing about nothing and what I cannot prove, when it is up to you prove what you are contending.

There is no evidence that those deportee's went anywhere and could have well stayed in the land just as many of the Southern tribes stayed where they were taken.

Your entire thesis is built on a false assumption, that those 10 tribes had to go somewhere.

[ And whatever attacks his view got were well deserved, as are the attacks on your posts since they are based on nothing but hot air and myth. ]

Well, I'm just shocked that this is your opinion.

And I am shocked that you are shocked!

[ The rage against this theory comes from the fact that is untrue and that it attempts to steal from the Jew what is rightfully his and make the Gentiles something that they aren't-Hebrews. ]

Not proved untrue, and the alternate not proved true.

Not proven true.

You have no idea that it is you that have to prove what you are asserting with some hard evidence, not cry about the length of time involved.

Steal? Steal what from them? God's love? You mean someone gets God's love and has it, another doesn't, like some zero sum? If there are brothers under the covenant with the Jews, this means the Jews no longer have God promises under the covenant?

What it means is that only the true sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the heirs, not those who want to pretend that they are in that bloodline with assertions about the 10 tribes.

Please explain.

Just did.

The Christian has spiritual blessings, the Jew will receive the earthly ones.

[ We do not need to be racial brothers to the Jew to aid him, we support him because he is still beloved by God for the 'father's sake' and the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God will bless those that bless the Hebrew has never been rescinded. ]

My point is, and has always been, so what if we are? What do the Jews lose? Be specific.

We aren't so, so the question is a mute one.

The fact that you are claiming something without any actual evidence shows that you are attempting to take what is not yours.

Unless you are a Jew, you are not going to receive the Covenant promises.

Even the Arab doesn't get them and they are blood brothers to the Jew.

[ No, I am a proponent of the truth, a foreign concept to you B.I. guys. ]

I already corrected you once, I'm not a "BI" guy, I depart from them on the replacement of Judah as the royal lineage. I will argue some other presumptions, however. Nobody is always right and nobody is always wrong.

Well, you are close enough to them in essentials, even if you disagree in some particulars.

[ The absolute evidence is the fact that whatever numbers of Jews exist are enough for God's purposes. ]

Your theory, flowing from your belief system, not God's. You have no idea at all how God intends to resolve anything.

My theory comes from what the Bible actually teaches, not my imigination.

So, God can accomplish what He intends with the numbers of Jews already in existance.

He doesn't need millions of 'Israelites' to accomplish anything

[ It is you that has made assertions that millions of Israelites are needed to complete God's Plan, which is untrue, based on a misreading of Hosea 1. ]

Wellll, you know, "sands of the sea" and all that. . .

Yea, future as I have cited in a number of posts.

[ So, since you have no prove of your theory, that no massive numbers of Israelites went anywhere near Western Europe and lost their memory and are now the 'real' Israelites. ]

The can be no "proof" of either theory 3 millennia after the fact. There can only be fragments that point one way or the other. I simply have presented more fragments than you have and refuted the one you have presented.

If there can be no proof, then you have no case.

What fragments you gave do not lead to the conclusion you think they do.

So without any actual proof, your theory is just that, a theory without any actual factual support.

Funny how we know other facts about those days, but we not about this view that you claim we cannot know about since it was so long ago.

You are in a position of just not wanting to believe it, whereas I much less invested; I am in the Body of Christ and under His law and salvation. While I feel sorry for the Jews, I think it's time for them to wake up from this paranoid nightmare they're caught in.

If you are a Christian, then you have nothing to worry about being part of Abraham's bloodline.

But the Jew has ever right to be paranoid since there are many antisemtics out there, as you seem to be.

Have not read anything I've said? Give me some evidence that the seeds of Abraham extant in the world are to "replace" Jews. They are all under the same covenant, my confused friend.

Once again, I am not your friend, and I am not the one confused.

You are confusing spiritual blessings with physical ones.

The Jew will receive the physical blessing promised by God, while the Church receives the spiritual ones.

[ NO, what it proves that there were Jews (all members of the 12 tribes0 scattered throughout Europe and Asia Minor. They did not forget who they were and become someone else. ]

Again, you assume that all the tribes were represented at that time and place, that Israel had returned and merged with Judah. Surely there must be some writing that records that event.

Yes, there is a writing, it is the Bible, where they are called the House of Israel.

Do you have any writings that they went to Western Europe.

Oh, that's right, you just admitted that you don't have any actual evidence.

[ That curse was placed on them as a single people and that was how they were scattered, first the Northern Kingdom and then the Southern, but scattered as a people who were reunited in the land of Israel as a people. ]

Yet to be reunited as in Israel as a people. You have already agree that Hosea was to take place in the future. Is this another claim that individual people are different than the group name that can only exist by virtue of the membership of those individuals?

The group name is for all those of the 12 tribes.

Those 12 tribes will be reunited offically in the Millennium.

[ They are not a reunited Kingdom yet. ]

Capitalizing "kingdom" does not lend any more credence to the notion that such is a living thinking entity with a soul rather than just a aggregate label for the people that belong to it.

And your refusal to deal with simple concepts reveals your own ignorance.

The Jews will be reunited a single Kingdom in the Millennium.

Until then they are a people without a Kingdom and King.

It's a pretty silly way to avoid the problem of Hosea being fulfilled and explaining Israel returning and merging with Judah, in my opinion. Regardless, such a mass influx of Israelites into Judah would have noteworthy and inspired much writing; the ancient writers that observed the phenomenon would think Hosea was fulfilled.

What mass influx?

The people left would have been enough and those returning in small groups as well.

So once again, you just repeat your straw man, indifferent to the actual reality of the situation.

[ The Millennial kingdom will definitely have live, flesh and blood people in it ]

This is your response to this statement of mine. . . "Oh, yes, you believe that "kingdom" is considered by God as a unique unit having nothing to do with the human beings with souls that compose "it"." If you don't read my posts, you waste my time and your time.

First, all of your posts are a waste of time since you cannot support with facts anything you say.

Now, It is not my fault if you write gibberish that cannot be understood.

You have assumed that I believe the Millennial reign will be only spiritual in nature, and I have stated that it will in fact be physical with flesh and blood people in it.

So, stop talking about things you do not understand-which is clearly everything.

[ The point is that the House of Israel was there in the Land. ]

But you didn't make that point. Here is what you said. . . "There is no assumption, it is based on fact and Biblical history. The only one with assumptions is you who cannot understand history and the Bible. Those 10 tribes were back in Israel after the deportation as seen by Anna being there and the House of Israel being mentioned by both the Lord and Peter."

Yes, and the point that there were those left in the Land was also made.

So, I have stated that all were the case, that people were left in the Land, that there were some who returned, and all of this was proven by Peter's words at Pentacost.

Clearly, you have a problem with dealing with context and truth.

Here is this Anna gal again. Don't you think with such a massive influx of non-Judah Israelites, there would be more, just by sheer numbers?

And again, you are using straw man, no one said that there would have to be a massive influx anywhere.

Stop your deceit!

Also, consider, the writer of the scripture though it worth it to point out she was not of Judah, Benjamin or Levi. This must be because if he didn't, readers would assume she was of one of those three tribes. Why distinguish? Because there was only Judah where she was.

That is an assumption on your part that is no supported by what the Lord said when He said He was going to the 'Lost house of Israel'.

The fact that a member of the tribe of Asar was present indicates that others were there as well, left from those who were not deported or who returned from the deportation.

[ They do not believe that the 12 tribes disappeared, since it is acknowledged the term 'Jew' refers to members of all of the tribes. ]

Who, specifically acknowledges that? Beyond, I mean, those who already believe in your rap, and where are the records that describe that event, convincing them with first causes and not a prior belief that needs the notion to remain a viable belief?

Oh, stop the gibberish talk, acting as if you know what you are talking about!

The Jew today does not believe the 10 tribes are lost, but that they are among them as Jews.

[ No, Christians believe that Jew means everyone from the 12 tribes. ]

I'm a Christian and I don't believe it, nor am I what you call a "B.I.". I know others in the same condition that don't believe it.

First, I would question that they are Christians, since they deny the Trinity.

Second, if you are a Christian, you are a deceived one, who has become an anti-semite.

Nevertheless, I believe a great many Christians believe it. I also believe that each one has never witnessed the lack of evidence for it and would disbelieve it if they were forced, like I am forcing you, to examine those beliefs.

LOL!

You have not forced any such thing.

Your posts have shown the shallowness of your position, the lack of Biblical knowledge and the simple inablity to think clearly.

Except, of course, those, like you, that want and must believe it.

Those like me, who actually believe what the Bible says about the Trinity, eternal damnation, a real Devil,and God's promises to the true heirs of the Covenant, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the Gentile wannabes.

No, provide some contrary proof and it goes away-but since you have none, it stands as a fact.

No, it is you that have to provide some evidence for your mythological views.

They are not supported by history, logic or the Bible.

You know, I read something like this, after numerous postings where I have presented, more than once, evidence and reasoning, and explained in detail the logical and historical fallacies of your statements of belief with little or no return from you.

You are a liar.

You have not provided any evidence except in your distorted thinking.

You make assumptions without any facts.

I am forced to think you are insecure in your certainty, feeling that you have to use strategy and technique instead of fact and rational conclusions to "win" an argument. We are supposed to be searching for the truth here. You don't search for truth with strategy and technique.

What you have to do to win an argument is actual prove your case with some facts.

You have none.

Your entire 'case' is based on straw man and question begging.

You assume what you need to prove and you set up straw man arguments that state what is not necessary for the other side to believe.

There is no need for any massive influx of Isaelites into the Land, if they most were left after the deportations.

There is no need for those who were deported to have gone anywhere.

Those are assumptions on your part that one does not have to assume to be true.

It must be nice in your little world of fantasy to construct your own little arguments and then win the debates based on false premises and logical fallacies.

But that is the world you guys live in, delusion and myth, not fact and reality.

[ You don't know how many people of the 10 tribes survived the Assyrian invasions. ]

Of course I don't know it and neither do you. I can reason it out pretty well from known information, and have. You apparently haven't been able to reason an lower numbers yourself.

You can't reason from anything since you have no numbers to start with!

What a nut!

[ What great revelation is this? We know that the Assyrians moved people around. So where is your proof that there were millions of Israelites in Assyria if only a fraction were deported? ]

The revelation is that your previous position that most of Israel was killed by the Assyrians was false.

I never said that most of Israel was killed, I said that they suffered heavy losses and that that would have diminished their nation greatly.

Stop your lying!

Again, do the math. If a tiny fraction were moved away from there home as troublemakers, and such are always a tiny fraction in any population, ancient or modern, and that number was 27,000. If the 27,000 was as high as 10%, the total population in that one area would be 270,000. but it was most likely 3% which would be 900,000 in that one area. Like I said, Do the same math for the regions occupied by the 10 tribes.

The 27,000 represented all of the 10 tribes.

Now, consider that the Assyrian empire went through a number of wars as well, those numbers could have been decreased as well.

So once again your theory doesn't hold any water since it lacks facts

[ Samaria was under siege for three years, which means quite a few did die! ]

Many people don't die during a siege. Many people die during an armed conflict.

Is that right?

Over three years!

You really are quite ignorant of historical facts.

In three years there would have been famine and diease which would have wiped out far more people then any armed conflict.

More people die of diease in war then actual battle.

[ Not during a three year siege when everyone is starving. ]

That's the purpose of a siege. When people are starving, the object of the siege surrenders.

Yea, and the Samarian seige took three years, so alot of people likely died in it.

Proof? As presented, much more than your proof Israel returned to Palestine and merged with Judah. Since we already know the demographics of Palestine during that period, that assumption is silly.

The proof is in the fact that there were members of the 10 tribes present after the Deportation so your contention doesn't stand up that there had to be a record of some massive influx.

Since that assumption can't be made with any credibility, you have yet to answer the question, where did they all go?

Most didn't go anywhere.

They didn't have to.

And the ones that did go, likely stayed where they went.

[ Nice little story. Proof? ]

The essence of proof is the time period that passed between the fall of Assyria and the birth of Christ. We know that and I have told you.

In other words-no proof.

[ read this very slowly-YOU HAVE NO NUMBERS. ]

But I have the mathematical means to translate known facts into numbers. I just did the math, since you couldn't or wouldn't do it yourself, above in this post.

You have no starting point and you do not know how many of those deported actually survived.

So, once again, you have no numbers!

Stop pretending that you do!

I haven't seen you show anything that constitutes proof that Israel returned to Palestine and merged with Judah.

Once, again, they don't have to.

You keep putting out this straw man.

A false assumption leads to a false conclusion.

[ The promise was made to the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and no other. When Jews intermarried, they did not form a new race, and forget who they were. They formed a mixed race, such as the Samartians, who mixed with the Israelites who had not been deported. ]

And every yield of intermarriage, whether it be in Europe, the Middle East or anywhere else is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

And it can be shown as well by the DNA.

But you were saying the Israelite didn't forget who they were.

They didn't.

Those that became mixed with other nations still kept the same traditions.

[ Well, the B.I. theory is that the 10 tribes moved as a unit into Europe. The bloodline to remain Hebrew has to be through Issac and Jacob as well. That is why Ishmael is not in the promise 'bloodline' even though he is a son of Abraham. ]

Well as I told you before, I don't subscribe to every little detail of the "British Israelites".

Good, because it is all wrong.

Who mentioned Ishmael? The Israelites were through Issac and Jacob. What are you talking about?

Well, if the promise doesn't go through Ishmael who is a real son of Abraham, it isn't going to anyone who is not in the real bloodline of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Are you not reading my posts again? If you're not going to, why don't you tell me so I won't waste my time, even though you would be acknowledging that you're just a trained performer with no though behind his tricks.

Your posts are a waste of time to anyone who can think clearly.

[ You haven't stated one fact that supports your kook theory. You have done nothing but assert without any evidence the notion that the Israelites had to be in the millions and then went into Western Europe and forgot they were Hebrews. You have no evidence regarding the numbers of Israelites who went into Assyria and were left in the land. Your entire thesis is nothing but question begging and if it were handed to any history teacher he would throw it back at you with an F! ]

Blah, blah, blah. Again, you obviously haven't read my posts, nor have you responded to my requests.

I have read your idiotic posts and they are full of nothing but logical fallacies with no historical support.

As I said, if you attempted to place this as a Thesis you would flunk.

I am going to have to stop here.

I will deal with the rest of your nonsense post later. I have supplied two major printed works, one in the history of Assyria and one on Israel, both of which reject your claims. But neither did. One even sought to claim that 27,000 Israleiteswere all there was in Samaria when Sargon relocated the Israelites even though that number were miscreants deported from the larger population by Tiglath-pileser III. This was in his annals, from the the Assyrian tablets, which you historians had never accessed! I grant you are a Christian, but even knowing that being a Christian must, by its very nature, be conservative, you argue like a liberal. It is you who has to prove that the Europeans are really Israelites. I can indicate with evidence that that theory of disposition is likely, for events 3 millennia ago. But you haven't even done that. You have relied on a consensus opinion of a sect, and have offered no evidence whatsoever that the Jews also included the the northern tribes. I have already given three citations from Study Bibles and a Commentary regarding Hosea, including Bullinger's note on it. So, the view that Hosea 1 refers to a future event is seen a number of theologians. I read very carefully your posts, unlike you do mine, and I don't see any linkage. I could see how, if you wanted to believe that Hosea would be fulfilled after Christ returns, you could see it that way, by only by prior conviction. None of the text compels that interpretation of itself. Maybe you should explain instead of just posting some text. Jeremiah 30:7 is referring to the Tribulation period. Jer.31 refers to the Millennial reign. The scripture is clear on it. The scripture is anything but clear on it, and it has nothing to do with Hosea's prophecy. This impression is something you put on it from your prior convictions. And there are any number of knowledgeable people who would argue against it, and have done so on this very thread. None of this stuff is cut and dry. Everybody has an opinion and make a case. You talk like it is universally accepted. The article of this thread is an example. Well, if that were the case, then the prophecy in verse 11 wouldn't be fulfilled now would it. Verses 10 and 11 go together, so the mutipication of Israel coincides with the Millennial reign and peace on earth. Goodness. There is nothing in Hosea 1:10-11 that says anything about the millennial reign of Christ. Neither you nor anyone else knows how the reign will come down or where Christians will be in the tribulation, nor even the material manifestation of the tribulation. Yes, they were wrong, including the Apostles who rebuked Christ when He said He had to be crucified. They were wrong because they didn't believe what the scriptures said and that is why Christ rebuked those who were walking on the road to Emmaus (Lk.24: 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: No doubt Christ would rebuke you in your myriad assumptions, too. You probably won't even recognize the tribulation when it happens, looking for something metaphysical. I'll give you a for instance. Bible: Men will beg for death and shall not be able to find it. Unconscious people on life support equipment right now may well be begging for death but that equipment just purrs right along denying them that release. This may be fanciful or it may not, but it is an indication you have no idea how the tribulation will play out in the real world. There is no plates that state any such thing about those Israelite deportee's moving anywhere. There are plates of people giving homage to the Assyrian king, whose dress show he was Israelite, and of peoples moving past outposts that showed Israelite dress, in this case a robe of a priest. It isn't the seed of Abraham that is the issue, it is the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. <{> And they have not spread out anywhere except as Jews. Of course, I mean the descendants of Israel, Huckleberry, what the hell else would I be talking about. Millions? Proof? Already, more than once, I have given you evidence and the math. Of course, these things happened almost 3 millenia ago. I think there is enough evidence to make a reasonable man think, but not one invested in his belief system. You shown no proof that the Israelites merged with Judah. More than one ancient writer should have been moved to record that. Where is it? Your view of Hosea is based on an unproven assumption that millions of Israelites existed during the Assyrian captivity and yet, there is no historical record of them and where they went. I think there is a good case for it, and I think I have made it. The only other alternative explanation is that all these Israelite returned from Assyria and joined Judah in Palestine. You have certainly given no evidence for that. As I said such an event would have been written of by more than one ancient writer. No, the scripture is very clear in those passages. They are clear when you approach them with a prior belief system to impose on them. You can go out to the Bible and always find something to interpret to support any belief. the Catholic are particularly bad about this. The meaning must be imposed on the unconditioned mind from its very words, and on any mind that reads them. Your cites don't. But there is no scripture that supports your view that the Israelites would forget who they were and would become other nations. There is no scripture that supports a return of Israelites from Assyria and reunited with Judah, and there would certainly be had it happened. I think I have put up enough evidence and logical conclusions to indicate that much, if not most, of the world's nation is composed of the seeds of Abraham (and Issac and Joseph, if you insist). Actually, the setup for Hosea is now, and, as I pointed out about the tribulation, the actual fulfilling of Hosea may not be recognizable to those who expect wild miracles and metaphysical manifestations. Israelite 'garb' you mean robes, which were worn by everyone in the Mideast? No. I mean robes unique to Israelite priests. And, I have no doubt that there were many that still remembered the old customs and practiced them. You keep forgetting we are talking abut 6 centuries from that point. A lot happens in 6 centuries, dear. Oh, yes it is, it as a race that is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and follows a very particular blood line. Israelite is a religion, is not a race. Passed by blood or not. Anyone can convert to being a Israelite or a Jew. Many have. We have many Jews that are descended from Khazar converts. You can be so entertaining at times. Not much, though. No, because to prove one is a Jew all one has to show is that one is in that racial lineage. All 12 tribes, no matter what the mixture would still be considered racial Jews. They don't have to be 'pure' Jew, but they have to have some Jewish blood, which most Gentiles do not have. But you said the Jews don't know who they are. And then the descendants of Israelites don't have to be "pure" Israelite to bring Hosea to pass, either. He wrote to the 12 tribes and he knew that they existed in the Roman Empire as Jews. And he said this where? This is another passage you cite that has equally valid alternate interpretation, (the other the tribes were know about but no in the region with Judah) especially since no ancient writing at all records a reuniting of the Assyrian Israelites and Judah. And you have some proof of that? Do you have any proof that Israel return from Assyria and merged with Judah? Ofcourse he was talking about Jews, that is why he called them the 12 tribes. He could have called them the Israelites and the Jews, but instead he called them the 12 tribes. Not reading my posts again. My response you're answering above was about Peter saying all of the House of Israel should know that the Judah crucified Jesus. Not before 1Ki.12 it wasn't. After Israel separated into two kingdoms, they are forever distinguished from one another. First, you will note that in Josephus that those in Media are called Jews. No, he didn't. . . "So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased;" Isn't it apparent that the sentence you are referring to is a continuation of "So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there;" Never said the House of Israel referred to both, only that Jew did. The house of Israel when mentioned does refer to the Northern Kingdom and is referred to by the Lord and Peter as being in the Land. Jesus and Peter did not refer to them being in the Land (by which you mean in Palestine). Reproduce the versus that specified that here. You are saying that the House of Judah (known as the Jews) include the House of Israel. Not hardly. You still haven't cited any ancient writing that records Israel being merged with Judah. There are no genealogical records of any tribe left. Ask a Jew, and when he says what tribe he belongs to tell he's wrong because there are no records. Tell me his reaction. Do it, or stop talking about it. There is clearly some indicator that points out a Jew in the DNA. No. There's not. Those who purport to have matching software won't release their algorithms. I tried. There is no documentation at all, and the notion of identification of genetic linkages after 3 millennia, especially with all the mixtures during those millennia, there cannot be. Just people trying to plug holes like you are. And could any Jew prove it what tribe he was from without a break in his genealogy? Why not ask, then get back to me. I have been impressed by your ability to beg the question. You state that there were millions of Israelites when the Northern Kingdom fell. Prove-None. You state that those same millions of Israelites formed the Western nations-prove. None. Your entire theory is based on no one provable fact. The best you can do with events this old is make reasonable conclusion on the limited data. I have done that. Your only explanation to the northern tribes disappearance is that they merged with Judah. You haven't produced any writings or records of that event. You and I know such an event would have been recorded, probably by more than one ancient writer. There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states anything about how many Israelites there you. You are blowing smoke. The published work on Assyria by an expert on the subject stated the opposite,that no one knows what happened to those tribes. But there is enough data to make reasonable conclusions, as I made above. You have yet to produce support for your theory. There are lots of works published on Assyria. Your "expert" apparently didn't consult an important resource. And that would mean that there were not many left now were there. In fact, Assyria had to import other tribes to make sure the land was inhabited. (2Ki.17). I don't know how you come to that conclusion. The majority were left. I discussed this above. Assyria traded deported dissidents from one area to another, for obvious reasons. that practice is well used in history. The population was depleted from war and invasion. And you have no idea how many people were left. And stop pretending that you do. You pull numbers out of nowhere. Israel could have well been down in the thousands, not the millions. Prove it. I can do the math based on the probable percentage of dissidents deported, as I did above. "Could well have been" could be equal to "could well have been" millions, but the math done with population and know data suggests the latter. You have no data at all to suggest the former. And do you have any actual proof of this as well? I never saw one individual make up so much history in my life. You do not know how high the losses were, or even how many people Israel had before the invasions. Try putting that into a thesis for a history teacher and see how far that would fly. I have evidence that points toward a conclusion. Do you? If you have to accept large numbers of northern tribes, your whole construct falls. Is that why Samaria was able to hold out for three years against the greatest military of it's day? You are just one assertion after another without a shred of any actual facts. They held out against a siege. This is known. Actual battle would have taken the toll you need to have for your theory. Have you read the translations of the Taylor prism? The fact is that you do not know the population that was deported. And you have stated that deportations only happened to the malcontents, now you are saying they happen to the entire population? You have not a single shred of evidence of how many people ended up in Media and how many were left in the Land. I think a person that deliberately tries to confuse events has little real support for his belief. Again, this is how liberals argue. This is probably the fifth time I've explained this. For about 20 years (around 745 to around 721) the northern tribes were besieged by the then Assyrian king. His policy were to deport troublemakers from their home area to another, and import from other areas to that one. Dissidents deported this was will be, as evidenced by other populations of malcontents, a small percentage of the whole population. In about 721, the new king, Sargon, gathered up, over time, the whole population of northern Israelites and moved them to Assyria's northern border among the Medians. Look at some maps of the ancient region. He placed them in Median cities. Look at a map to get a sense of how large the Medes was. Yes, and from the quotes, it appears that the entire population of Sameria was deported and it was only 27,000. So your quotes prove my thesis not yours. And once again, we know that the tribes were deported, so you aren't telling us anything we don't already know. What you need to quote is a passage that tells us that millions of Israelites were deported. Are you dense? The fact is that millions of Israelites were not deported and then moved somewhere else. Those who were born in those nations they were deported to, either remained there or returned to the Land. The fact is they were, by reasonable extrapolation of known population numbers. I believe it was you that posted a verse that said they were placed among the Medians. The Assyrian records themselves state that. If they returned to the "Land" there would be records of it. If some stayed in the Assyrian land and made cities, which there are Assyrian records of letters the (then) collapsing authority complaining of them successfully repelling tribute collectors, and some moving north (look on a map where Media was located), over nearly 3 millennia they would have virtually covered the globe with seeds of Abraham (and, as you insist, Issac and Jacob). Just the 6 centuries from the fall of Nineveh and final collapse of the Assyrian empire allowed time to spread and forget who they were. Six centuries is 24 generations, 2700 years is 108 generations. To give you a benchmark of population growth, did you know that between 1950 and 2000 the population of the Middle East quadrupled? And is expected to double by 2050? The number of children in a family was vastly greater at the time we are talking about, and the average in modern times was about 4 offspring per. After Sargon moved the northern tribes to the Medes, they stayed there for about a century, 4 generations. The known data and reasonable population growths lean against your theory. I am using the merging of both Israel and Judah because that is what happened and the word Jew refers to all of the tribes of Israel, not just Judah. You have shown now records of it. And a reasonable extrapolation of population growth precludes it. What else do you have to offer? What you have to prove is that they went somewhere as a people and became someone else. I think I've made a good case for it. What have you proved? For events this old, we can only make reasonable assumptions, which I have, and which you have not. So once again you have cited irrelevant facts which do not give any credence to your view that the Israelite went anywhere as a people. They reproduced and dispersed as Jews, not as Gentiles. Prove it. No, they could have remained in the land where they were born, just as many did when the Southern tribes returned from the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, many were visiting on Pentecost in Acts 2. Many Jews remain in America today and are not in Israel. So once again, you make an unfounded assertion. But they didn't. The northern tribes were moved to the Medes in 721. In 612 Nineveh was destroyed and Assyria fell as an empire. About 590 Judah was captured by the Babylonians. that was 20 years later and the northern tribes were not there. In 550 Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and let Judah go back to the Land (as you call it). The northern tribes were not there. I'm at a loss as to when you think they returned and merged with Judah. With the reasonable conclusion from the data and known facts, and the time spans involved, the presumption must be that the major part, or the majority, of the world's population trace their heritage back to Abraham on Issac's side, and therefore are heirs to God's promises under the old covenant. European and Middle Eastern. And if they were left in the Land, they would have been there when the Lord was born. So what happened to the 10 tribes in Assyria is irrelevant to the fact that all 12 tribes existed in Israel at the time of Christ's birth. You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented. Assyria and Media is not the "Land". Turkey and northern Europe is not the "Land". It is recorded history that many of the Sumarians were from other populations moved there by the Assyrian authority. Your statement is based on assumptions you have not presented an incontrovertible evidence or logic for. There were no populations of norther tribes in Palestine, and you have no records by ancient writers that even mention such an event. You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented. Then you would have to explain the vast numbers missing from your theory. And a while back you were saying that only the trouble makers were deported, so now it is everyone? Goodness, haven't you gotten that there were numbers of deportation during the siege of northern Israel, for 20 years, and one vast move of all the northern tribes to Media? Movement to Turkey is not the issue, it is the movement into Western Europe. No one has any problem with Israelites moving around that area of the world, since they are all found there as Jews. So, your outpost sightings and trackings have nothing to do with the B.I. theory which states that millions of Israelites moved into Western Europe and forgot that they were Hebrews. Movement to Turkey and then stop there? In 6 centuries? Not reasonable. For the northern tribes to have been known as Jews, you have to provided some ancient writings that record that event. You still don't seem to have a sense of the time spans involved. I have investigated them enough to know that there are none that supports your view. Specifically what tablet translation did you examine? You didn't even know they existed until I told you. And, as an aside, there are no tablets, cylinders or prisms among that 23,000 collection the mentions anything at all about the northern tribes going back south to Palestine. You have not a shred of evidence that those people went anywhere near Western Europe. I have, and I have presented it, on prior posts and on this one. And I have already posted a refutation of that canard. No, you haven't. You just said no, it's not, and posted some ambiguous statement off the internet. Anyone can find anything on the internet. All you have to do is look at the region and the names of Geographical features, without both hands over your eyes, of course. First, you have not given a single verse of scripture to support you contention that the Hebrews were ever to forget their heritage. I don't have to. Population dynamics and historical facts postulate most of the world's population can trace their bloodline back to Israel. Individuals today know nothing about it. God will reveal it, and He may even now be in that process, hence this very controversy. God does not work instantly. Second, what makes you think that they went anywhere. Already have shown you numerous times, and you attempts to refute it have been weak. Josephus, whom you cited, states they are still in those lands when he wrote. Above I clearly show your misreading of that excerpt. What I hate are liars. Just so. You seem filled with hate to me, just from the gratuitous comments you make. It blinds you. Your theory that the Gentiles are really the Israelites is simply myth, with not a single solid fact to support it. Those who have ancestors that were members of the northern tribes would not be gentiles, would they? Actually, the merging of Israel and Judah is made clear in the usage of the word 'Jew' which stands now for all tribes. The Biblical evidence supports the fact that all the 12 tribes were in the Land when the Lord was born and are addressed as the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The historical evidence supports me since Josephus refers to the House of Israel still in the former Assyrian lands, they had not gone anywhere. I've already presented the origin of the label "Jew". It is limited to the House of Judah. You have no biblical evidence except what I have proved is ambiguous. You keep throwing it at me like repetition equals truth. I've already discussed Josephus misreading above. I've looked over the rest from here and I've already discussed it above, or in prior posts. Do you have anything new? I have to say thanks for providing the forum to get all this out, and I have been motivated by you to uncover much else. the notion of the northern tribes being merged with Judah has been floating around out there for a long time. It is educational to know how lacking in foundation it is. I search for the truth. Do you?

You guys are going to have to cut down the length of your replies...my finger is getting worn out from scrolling.

Most responses to FTD can be shortened down to "You're wrong". :-)

This is by far the longest post I have ever seen on FR, but I had to tell you I love your tag line!

You guys are going to have to cut down the length of your replies...my finger is getting worn out from scrolling. Most responses to FTD can be shortened down to "You're wrong". :-)

Well, that is all you guys are left with saying at the end, because you certainly don't have any facts to support your theories.

Well, that is all you guys are left with saying at the end, because you certainly don't have any facts to support your theories.

You forgot the smiley face! :-)

I will deal with the rest of your nonsense post later.

I am back to finish up your nonsense post.

[ I have supplied two major printed works, one in the history of Assyria and one on Israel, both of which reject your claims.]

But neither did. One even sought to claim that 27,000 Israleiteswere all there was in Samaria when Sargon relocated the Israelites even though that number were miscreants deported from the larger population by Tiglath-pileser III. This was in his annals, from the the Assyrian tablets, which you historians had never accessed!

Stop your nonsense!

No work I gave ever stated that there were only 27,000 in Samaria.

As for Tiglath-Pilesar 111 you didn't give any numbers on that deportation.

So, once again you have shown yourself to be a fraud and a deceiver.

I grant you are a Christian, but even knowing that being a Christian must, by its very nature, be conservative, you argue like a liberal. It is you who has to prove that the Europeans are really Israelites. I can indicate with evidence that that theory of disposition is likely, for events 3 millennia ago. But you haven't even done that. You have relied on a consensus opinion of a sect, and have offered no evidence whatsoever that the Jews also included the the northern tribes.

You have shown nothing but alot of rhetoric and poor logic.

The opinion I have relied on have the facts, and that is why it is the correct one.

[ I have already given three citations from Study Bibles and a Commentary regarding Hosea, including Bullinger's note on it. So, the view that Hosea 1 refers to a future event is seen a number of theologians.]

I read very carefully your posts, unlike you do mine, and I don't see any linkage. I could see how, if you wanted to believe that Hosea would be fulfilled after Christ returns, you could see it that way, by only by prior conviction. None of the text compels that interpretation of itself.

Well, it does when combined with other texts.

Maybe you should explain instead of just posting some text.

The texts are clear.

[ Jeremiah 30:7 is referring to the Tribulation period. Jer.31 refers to the Millennial reign. The scripture is clear on it.]

The scripture is anything but clear on it, and it has nothing to do with Hosea's prophecy. This impression is something you put on it from your prior convictions. And there are any number of knowledgeable people who would argue against it, and have done so on this very thread. None of this stuff is cut and dry. Everybody has an opinion and make a case. You talk like it is universally accepted. The article of this thread is an example. Well, if that were the case, then the prophecy in verse 11 wouldn't be fulfilled now would it. Verses 10 and 11 go together, so the mutipication of Israel coincides with the Millennial reign and peace on earth. Goodness. There is nothing in Hosea 1:10-11 that says anything about the millennial reign of Christ. Neither you nor anyone else knows how the reign will come down or where Christians will be in the tribulation, nor even the material manifestation of the tribulation.

The scriptures are clear to anyone who reads with the desire to understand them and not reject what they say, as you clearly have.

[ Yes, they were wrong, including the Apostles who rebuked Christ when He said He had to be crucified. They were wrong because they didn't believe what the scriptures said and that is why Christ rebuked those who were walking on the road to Emmaus (Lk.24: 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:]

No doubt Christ would rebuke you in your myriad assumptions, too. You probably won't even recognize the tribulation when it happens, looking for something metaphysical. I'll give you a for instance. Bible: Men will beg for death and shall not be able to find it. Unconscious people on life support equipment right now may well be begging for death but that equipment just purrs right along denying them that release. This may be fanciful or it may not, but it is an indication you have no idea how the tribulation will play out in the real world.

I don't worry about the Tribulation since as a Christian I am not going to go through it.

[ There is no plates that state any such thing about those Israelite deportee's moving anywhere.]

There are plates of people giving homage to the Assyrian king, whose dress show he was Israelite, and of peoples moving past outposts that showed Israelite dress, in this case a robe of a priest.

Which means NOTHING.

[ It isn't the seed of Abraham that is the issue, it is the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. <{> And they have not spread out anywhere except as Jews.]

Of course, I mean the descendants of Israel, Huckleberry, what the hell else would I be talking about.

So, don't keep calling them children of Abraham.

Abraham had other sons as well.

[ Millions? Proof?]

Already, more than once, I have given you evidence and the math. Of course, these things happened almost 3 millenia ago. I think there is enough evidence to make a reasonable man think, but not one invested in his belief system. You shown no proof that the Israelites merged with Judah. More than one ancient writer should have been moved to record that. Where is it? Your view of Hosea is based on an unproven assumption that millions of Israelites existed during the Assyrian captivity and yet, there is no historical record of them and where they went. I think there is a good case for it, and I think I have made it. The only other alternative explanation is that all these Israelite returned from Assyria and joined Judah in Palestine. You have certainly given no evidence for that. As I said such an event would have been written of by more than one ancient writer. No, the scripture is very clear in those passages. They are clear when you approach them with a prior belief system to impose on them. You can go out to the Bible and always find something to interpret to support any belief. the Catholic are particularly bad about this. The meaning must be imposed on the unconditioned mind from its very words, and on any mind that reads them. Your cites don't.

This is the 'I have no proof admission, but my theory is still legimate despite that fact' statement.

You have proven nothing either by logic or math.

You don't know how many were deported.

You don't know how many were left in the Land.

Actually you know nothing that isn't known by anyone with a year of college history, that the 10 tribes were deported.

Now, I don't have to show any record of them coming back for the 10 tribes to be in Israel at the time of Christ since we know that many were left in the Land itself and over 6 centuries would have reproduced.

So, I don't have to show anything, it is you that is making the claims that Europe was settled by the Israelites.

With no evidence.

[ But there is no scripture that supports your view that the Israelites would forget who they were and would become other nations.]

There is no scripture that supports a return of Israelites from Assyria and reunited with Judah, and there would certainly be had it happened.

It isn't necessary that they did, there were plenty left in the Land after the deportation.

I think I have put up enough evidence and logical conclusions to indicate that much, if not most, of the world's nation is composed of the seeds of Abraham (and Issac and Joseph, if you insist).

If you think that you are ready for the funny farm!

You have posted nothing to prove anything, less the notion that the worlds' nations are composed of the seeds of Abraham.

Actually, the setup for Hosea is now, and, as I pointed out about the tribulation, the actual fulfilling of Hosea may not be recognizable to those who expect wild miracles and metaphysical manifestations.

Oh, like Christ said would happen in Matthew 24?

That is not going to happen?

[ Israelite 'garb' you mean robes, which were worn by everyone in the Mideast?]

No. I mean robes unique to Israelite priests.

We know that the Assyrian's knew about the Hebrew Priests, since they sent one back to the Land to teach those who they had placed on the land the traditions of that Hebrew religion (2Ki.17), so your appeal to a plate with a Hebrew Priest in it means nothing.

And, I have no doubt that there were many that still remembered the old customs and practiced them. You keep forgetting we are talking abut 6 centuries from that point. A lot happens in 6 centuries, dear.

Yes, alot does happen in 6 centuries, but the Jews have not forgotten who they were over 4,000 years, so it is unlikely that they would forget it over 600 years.

Oh, yes it is, it as a race that is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and follows a very particular blood line. Israelite is a religion, is not a race.

We are not talking about their religion, we are talking about the bloodlines.

Passed by blood or not. Anyone can convert to being a Israelite or a Jew. Many have.

Yes, I know, Ruth did.

But she was not an Hebrew by blood.

We have many Jews that are descended from Khazar converts.

Khazer?

That anti-semitism has you real tight doesn't it.

You can be so entertaining at times. Not much, though.

I don't find you entertaining at all, pitiful yes, but entertaining no.

[ No, because to prove one is a Jew all one has to show is that one is in that racial lineage. All 12 tribes, no matter what the mixture would still be considered racial Jews. They don't have to be 'pure' Jew, but they have to have some Jewish blood, which most Gentiles do not have.]

But you said the Jews don't know who they are. And then the descendants of Israelites don't have to be "pure" Israelite to bring Hosea to pass, either.

They would have to have some Hebrew blood in them, which most of the world doesn't have!

[ He wrote to the 12 tribes and he knew that they existed in the Roman Empire as Jews.]

And he said this where? This is another passage you cite that has equally valid alternate interpretation, (the other the tribes were know about but no in the region with Judah)

First, James is not writing to just those in Judah, he is writing to all those in the Roman Empire.

Second, he wrote to the 12 tribes, not the 10 plus 2.

So, the interpretation is very clear with someone can read basic English.

especially since no ancient writing at all records a reuniting of the Assyrian Israelites and Judah. And you have some proof of that? Do you have any proof that Israel return from Assyria and merged with Judah?

Don't need it.

The 12 tribes were in existence without needing to make reference to the 10 tribes deported.

We know that many were left in the Land.

You really have a hard time with simple reasoning don't you.

[ Ofcourse he was talking about Jews, that is why he called them the 12 tribes. He could have called them the Israelites and the Jews, but instead he called them the 12 tribes]

Not reading my posts again.

Oh, I read your posts, they just don't say anything of any value.

My response you're answering above was about Peter saying all of the House of Israel should know that the Judah crucified Jesus.

And Peter was addressing the House of Israel.

[ Not before 1Ki.12 it wasn't. After Israel separated into two kingdoms, they are forever distinguished from one another. First, you will note that in Josephus that those in Media are called Jews. No, he didn't. . . "So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased;" Isn't it apparent that the sentence you are referring to is a continuation of "So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there;" Never said the House of Israel referred to both, only that Jew did.

Josephus stated that the 10 tribes were still in the lands that the Assyrian had taken them.

They hadn't gone anywhere.

[ The house of Israel when mentioned does refer to the Northern Kingdom and is referred to by the Lord and Peter as being in the Land.]

Jesus and Peter did not refer to them being in the Land (by which you mean in Palestine).

Yes, Jesus and Peter did refer to the House of Israel and the land is Israel, you anti-semite.

Reproduce the versus that specified that here.

Matthew 15 and Acts 2.

You are saying that the House of Judah (known as the Jews) include the House of Israel. Not hardly.

No, I am saying that both houses were present in the land at the time of Christ and the house of Israel is mentioned as being there.

You still haven't cited any ancient writing that records Israel being merged with Judah.

Don't have to, since we know that they many were left after the deportation.

And your evidence that they went somewhere from Assyria is?-Zero!

[ There are no genealogical records of any tribe left.]

Ask a Jew, and when he says what tribe he belongs to tell he's wrong because there are no records. Tell me his reaction. Do it, or stop talking about it.

I don't' have to.

If there are any Jews reading these posts they can come forward and tell me that the can trace their lineage back to the 1st century A.D..

No Jew can do that, so whatever claims he makes are not based on any records that survive back to the 1st century A.D.

[ There is clearly some indicator that points out a Jew in the DNA.]

No. There's not. Those who purport to have matching software won't release their algorithms. I tried. There is no documentation at all, and the notion of identification of genetic linkages after 3 millennia, especially with all the mixtures during those millennia, there cannot be. Just people trying to plug holes like you are.

Well, according to your own B.I. guys, that is not true.

In his chapter attacking the Mormons, E.R.Capt states,

Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world has already shown that they shared common strains from the Middle East.Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America....Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA on the genetic strands of todays American Indians and Pacific Islanders (Counterfeit Christianity, E.Raymond Capt, pg.78

So, one can test the DNA and see if one has any Middle Eastern blood in him and if not, that would rule him out as a 'child of Abraham'.

We have already ruled out the Indians and Pacific Islanders.

So once again, you have been shown to be a fraud.

[ And could any Jew prove it what tribe he was from without a break in his genealogy?]

Why not ask, then get back to me.

No need to, the question is rhetorical.

They can't prove anything since they have no records that go back to the 1st century A.D.and before.

[ I have been impressed by your ability to beg the question. You state that there were millions of Israelites when the Northern Kingdom fell. Prove-None. You state that those same millions of Israelites formed the Western nations-prove. None. Your entire theory is based on no one provable fact.]

The best you can do with events this old is make reasonable conclusion on the limited data. I have done that.

Your conclusions are not reasonable at all, they are ridiculous and childish.

Anyone who would say that the world is now composed of Abraham's children is ready for the rubber room.

Your only explanation to the northern tribes disappearance is that they merged with Judah.

No, I said that they were assimilated into the culture.

You reject the obvious so you can continue to hold to your screwball theory.

You haven't produced any writings or records of that event. You and I know such an event would have been recorded, probably by more than one ancient writer.

Well, nothing was produced about any movement out of Assyria was there?

So, by your own statement you undercut your own thesis.

[ There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states anything about how many Israelites there you. You are blowing smoke. The published work on Assyria by an expert on the subject stated the opposite,that no one knows what happened to those tribes.]

But there is enough data to make reasonable conclusions, as I made above.

You have concocted a theory with no factual support based on poor reasoning abilities.

You have rejected the most obvious answer to the 10 tribes, that they didn't go anywhere.

[ You have yet to produce support for your theory.]

There are lots of works published on Assyria. Your "expert" apparently didn't consult an important resource.

He consulted the ones that were in existence.

Which is more then can be said for you.

You just make us stuff as you go along.

[ And that would mean that there were not many left now were there. In fact, Assyria had to import other tribes to make sure the land was inhabited. (2Ki.17).]

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. The majority were left. I discussed this above. Assyria traded deported dissidents from one area to another, for obvious reasons. that practice is well used in history. The population was depleted from war and invasion.

And the scriptures says very clearly in 2Ki.17:24 states very clearly that other tribes were brought in that did not know the Hebrew customs and thus a Hebrew Priest was brought in.

[ And you have no idea how many people were left. And stop pretending that you do. You pull numbers out of nowhere. Israel could have well been down in the thousands, not the millions.]

Prove it. I can do the math based on the probable percentage of dissidents deported, as I did above.

You have not done any math, you just pull numbers out of the thin air.

You have no idea how many people you are dealing with, their birth and death rates, nothing.

Your ignorance is astounding but your arrogance even more so!

"Could well have been" could be equal to "could well have been" millions, but the math done with population and know data suggests the latter.

You have no data to support anything you assert.

You live in a fantasy world.

Are you sending these posts from an asylum?

[ You have no data at all to suggest the former. And do you have any actual proof of this as well? I never saw one individual make up so much history in my life. You do not know how high the losses were, or even how many people Israel had before the invasions. Try putting that into a thesis for a history teacher and see how far that would fly.]

I have evidence that points toward a conclusion. Do you? If you have to accept large numbers of northern tribes, your whole construct falls. Is that why Samaria was able to hold out for three years against the greatest military of it's day? You are just one assertion after another without a shred of any actual facts. They held out against a siege. This is known. Actual battle would have taken the toll you need to have for your theory. Have you read the translations of the Taylor prism?

Oh, cut it out!

I have read the translation that stated how many people Sargon deported, which was all of 27,000.

[ The fact is that you do not know the population that was deported. And you have stated that deportations only happened to the malcontents, now you are saying they happen to the entire population? You have not a single shred of evidence of how many people ended up in Media and how many were left in the Land.]

I think a person that deliberately tries to confuse events has little real support for his belief. Again, this is how liberals argue. This is probably the fifth time I've explained this. For about 20 years (around 745 to around 721) the northern tribes were besieged by the then Assyrian king. His policy were to deport troublemakers from their home area to another, and import from other areas to that one. Dissidents deported this was will be, as evidenced by other populations of malcontents, a small percentage of the whole population. In about 721, the new king, Sargon, gathered up, over time, the whole population of northern Israelites and moved them to Assyria's northern border among the Medians. Look at some maps of the ancient region. He placed them in Median cities. Look at a map to get a sense of how large the Medes was.

Sargon deported those from Samaria, but there were always those left who remained behind.

The same happened when the Southern tribe was deported.

[ Yes, and from the quotes, it appears that the entire population of Samaria was deported and it was only 27,000. So your quotes prove my thesis not yours. And once again, we know that the tribes were deported, so you aren't telling us anything we don't already know. What you need to quote is a passage that tells us that millions of Israelites were deported. Are you dense? The fact is that millions of Israelites were not deported and then moved somewhere else. Those who were born in those nations they were deported to, either remained there or returned to the Land.]

The fact is they were, by reasonable extrapolation of known population numbers. I believe it was you that posted a verse that said they were placed among the Medians. The Assyrian records themselves state that. If they returned to the "Land" there would be records of it. If some stayed in the Assyrian land and made cities, which there are Assyrian records of letters the (then) collapsing authority complaining of them successfully repelling tribute collectors, and some moving north (look on a map where Media was located), over nearly 3 millennia they would have virtually covered the globe with seeds of Abraham (and, as you insist, Issac and Jacob).

LOL!

Those who were deported either remained where they were, or returned to the Land.

They did not drift out of Assyria so the 'seed of Abraham covers the world'.

If that happened there would be some record of it.

Just the 6 centuries from the fall of Nineveh and final collapse of the Assyrian empire allowed time to spread and forget who they were. Six centuries is 24 generations, 2700 years is 108 generations. To give you a benchmark of population growth, did you know that between 1950 and 2000 the population of the Middle East quadrupled? And is expected to double by 2050? The number of children in a family was vastly greater at the time we are talking about, and the average in modern times was about 4 offspring per. After Sargon moved the northern tribes to the Medes, they stayed there for about a century, 4 generations. The known data and reasonable population growths lean against your theory. I am using the merging of both Israel and Judah because that is what happened and the word Jew refers to all of the tribes of Israel, not just Judah. You have shown now records of it. And a reasonable extrapolation of population growth precludes it. What else do you have to offer? What you have to prove is that they went somewhere as a people and became someone else. I think I've made a good case for it.

Well, you think wrong!

You actually have to have some numbers to start with to make any estimations

You have nothing but your own opinion with no facts, no numbers to deal with, no birth rates, no death rates-nothing, zero!

What y What have you proved? For events this old, we can only make reasonable assumptions, which I have, and which you have not.

You have not made any reasonable assumptions, they are based on illogical assumptions, with no hard data to support them and then you come to the insane conclusion that millions of the children of Abraham are covering the globe. So once again you have cited irrelevant facts which do not give any credence to your view that the Israelite went anywhere as a people. They reproduced and dispersed as Jews, not as Gentiles.

No, they could have remained in the land where they were born, just as many did when the Southern tribes returned from the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, many were visiting on Pentecost in Acts 2. Many Jews remain in America today and are not in Israel. So once again, you make an unfounded assertion.

But they didn't. The northern tribes were moved to the Medes in 721. In 612 Nineveh was destroyed and Assyria fell as an empire. About 590 Judah was captured by the Babylonians. that was 20 years later and the northern tribes were not there. In 550 Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and let Judah go back to the Land (as you call it). The northern tribes were not there. I'm at a loss as to when you think they returned and merged with Judah. With the reasonable conclusion from the data and known facts, and the time spans involved, the presumption must be that the major part, or the majority, of the world's population trace their heritage back to Abraham on Issac's side, and therefore are heirs to God's promises under the old covenant. European and Middle Eastern. (emphasis added by me)

I wanted anyone who reads this to see what conclusion you have reached with zero evidence.

Those people who were deported to Assyria didn't have to go anywhere, they could have stayed right where they were.

And if they were left in the Land, they would have been there when the Lord was born. So what happened to the 10 tribes in Assyria is irrelevant to the fact that all 12 tribes existed in Israel at the time of Christ's birth. You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented.

Assyria and Media is not the "Land". Turkey and northern Europe is not the "Land". It is recorded history that many of the Sumarians were from other populations moved there by the Assyrian authority. Your statement is based on assumptions you have not presented an incontrovertible evidence or logic for.

You have provided no evidence for anything nor logic.

Since there is no record of those deportees actually moving as a group, the logical assumption is that they stayed where they were put.

There were no populations of norther tribes in Palestine, and you have no records by ancient writers that even mention such an event.

You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented. Then you would have to explain the vast numbers missing from your theory. And a while back you were saying that only the trouble makers were deported, so now it is everyone?

Goodness, haven't you gotten that there were numbers of deportation during the siege of northern Israel, for 20 years, and one vast move of all the northern tribes to Media?

And there were those who were left after the deportation in 721, as clearly seen in 2Chronicles.

Moreover, Movement to Turkey is not the issue, it is the movement into Western Europe. No one has any problem with Israelites moving around that area of the world, since they are all found there as Jews. So, your outpost sightings and trackings have nothing to do with the B.I. theory which states that millions of Israelites moved into Western Europe and forgot that they were Hebrews.

Movement to Turkey and then stop there? In 6 centuries? Not reasonable.

If they had moved into Western Europe there would be some record of it.

There is none.

For the northern tribes to have been known as Jews, you have to provided some ancient writings that record that event.

You still don't seem to have a sense of the time spans involved.

The time span doesn't remove the problems you face in proving that enough Israelites moved into Western Europe, with no historical record and filled that area with their bloodline.

[I have investigated them enough to know that there are none that supports your view.]

Specifically what tablet translation did you examine? You didn't even know they existed until I told you.

You haven't told me that I hadn't known since I was a freshman in college.

Everything you stated was taught in ancient history 101.

Get a grip on your ego.

And, as an aside, there are no tablets, cylinders or prisms among that 23,000 collection the mentions anything at all about the northern tribes going back south to Palestine.

There is nothing about them going into Western Europe either.

And we don't have them going into Israel,since we know from 2Chronciles that people from the 10 tribes were left behind after the Deportation.

You have not a shred of evidence that those people went anywhere near Western Europe.

I have, and I have presented it, on prior posts and on this one. And I have already posted a refutation of that canard.

You have not posted a single fact that can be supported by any hard data.

Your view is simply idiocy built upon nonsense.

No, you haven't. You just said no, it's not, and posted some ambiguous statement off the internet. Anyone can find anything on the internet. All you have to do is look at the region and the names of Geographical features, without both hands over your eyes, of course.

And what does that prove about anything?

Nothing.

First, you have not given a single verse of scripture to support you contention that the Hebrews were ever to forget their heritage.

I don't have to. Population dynamics and historical facts postulate most of the world's population can trace their bloodline back to Israel. Individuals today know nothing about it. God will reveal it, and He may even now be in that process, hence this very controversy. God does not work instantly. Second, what makes you think that they went anywhere. Already have shown you numerous times, and you attempts to refute it have been weak. Josephus, whom you cited, states they are still in those lands when he wrote. Above I clearly show your misreading of that excerpt. What I hate are liars. Just so. You seem filled with hate to me, just from the gratuitous comments you make. It blinds you.

No, you are blinded by your hatred for the Jew, so you try to defend this utter fabrication of truth.

Your theory that the Gentiles are really the Israelites is simply myth, with not a single solid fact to support it.

Those who have ancestors that were members of the northern tribes would not be gentiles, would they? Actually, the merging of Israel and Judah is made clear in the usage of the word 'Jew' which stands now for all tribes. The Biblical evidence supports the fact that all the 12 tribes were in the Land when the Lord was born and are addressed as the House of Judah and the House of Israel.

The historical evidence supports me since Josephus refers to the House of Israel still in the former Assyrian lands, they had not gone anywhere.

I've already presented the origin of the label "Jew". It is limited to the House of Judah. You have no biblical evidence except what I have proved is ambiguous. You keep throwing it at me like repetition equals truth. I've already discussed Josephus misreading above. I've looked over the rest from here and I've already discussed it above, or in prior posts. Do you have anything new? I have to say thanks for providing the forum to get all this out, and I have been motivated by you to uncover much else. the notion of the northern tribes being merged with Judah has been floating around out there for a long time. It is educational to know how lacking in foundation it is. I search for the truth. Do you?

You wouldn't know the truth if it fell on your head!

What you have revealed in this forum is your utter ignorance of history, logic, reason, and the Bible.

You start with a false premise and build to a false conclusion.

Your entire theory is build on straw man, question begging and circular reasoning.

No one has to prove anything regarding the 10 tribes.

We know that all 12 tribes are still in existence as Jews, not Gentiles.

The DNA code would show who are the blood children of Abraham and it isn't the Gentiles who make up Western Europe and Asia.

I am glad that you indeed had a forum to show what a bunch of kooks make up the B.I. movement.

Discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal!

JEWISH GENES
DNA Evidence for Common Jewish Origin and Maintenance of the Ancestral Genetic Profile
By Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman
(Use with permission only)

Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics – the study of DNA sequences – indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry.

These genetic research findings support Jewish tradition – both written and oral. After over one thousand years of history in the Land of Israel, Jews dispersed to many and distant locations throughout the world.

Some Jewish exile communities were relatively stable for two millenia – such as in Babylonia (Iraq) and Persia (Iran). Others developed centuries later, following successive migrations to North Africa and Europe.

All of these communities maintained their Jewish customs and religious observance despite prolonged periods of persecution. Jews remained generally culturally isolated from their host communities. These genetic studies are a testimony to Jewish family faithfulness.

Only the Jewish people in the history of mankind has retained its genetic identity for over 100 generations while being spread throughout the world – truly unique and inspiring.

http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/jewish_genes_-_dna_evidence.htm

While you're doing that, satisfy my curiosity.

If, and I say "if", the world is covered by descendants of Israel, from whatever source, Europe or anywhere, do you think this would be a good thing for today's Jews? And the reasoning for the answer?

Note, this is a hypothetical. If you use that as an reason to avoid, then it has to be presumed that you would think it would be, because, considering your position, if you thought it wasn't you would say so and gave reasons.

Every bit of this post is found on the three or four other threads currently in play. Please consolidate. I just posted a response to the lengthier one. Please include any comments that you made on this one in your response to that one.

Thank you.

Every bit of this post is found on the three or four other threads currently in play. Please consolidate. I just posted a response to the lengthier one. Please include any comments that you made on this one in your response to that one.

Thank you.