[William Terrell]

You know, before the topic has come up on FR several years ago, I had never heard of "British Israelism". Since, I've read quite a bit about it.

I've considered the arguments pro and con, the writings and drawings on the pictures of Assyrian tablets I've seen pictures of, the radical sects of it that claim that the present day Jews are not really Jews, but impostors, and the British Royalty is in their place.

There are radical elements and there are moderate elements. But there does seem to be evidence of Israel heading toward Turkey, according to those Assyrian writings and drawings. I've argued this evidence myself a number of time on this forum.

Of the side against it, I've seen anger and outrage, but little else.

My question is now, and was then, and continues to be, why is it considered bad? I can't claim to be a BI, but I see some of the evidence presented as valid. It would seem that, in past debates, the sum argument against the notion that th e 10 tribes migrated to Europe has been to simply accuse the proponents of "British Israelism".

So, I ask, why is that bad? Have they killed any Jews or advocated killing them (except for a few radicals, of course, there are always radicals in all things)? Have they taken any physical harmful action?

Just what is the hype about?

[Ping-Pong]

You are a voice of reason.

I too feel that valid evidence has been presented as well as many Biblical references. To me, it would seem completely illogical to believe otherwise but that is just my opinion. What I fail to understand is the anger associated with some that chose not to believe it.

[Quix]

I certainly would not consider myself a proponent of British Israelism.

But I find it quite plausible that Denmark was populated by folks from the tribe of Dan. My step-father happens to be full blood Danish.

To contend that the Jews in Israel are not children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is utter nonsense, to me.

[fortheDeclaration]

But there does seem to be evidence of Israel heading toward Turkey, according to those Assyrian writings and drawings. I've argued this evidence myself a number of time on this forum.

There seems to be evidence of Israel heading toward Turkey?

And you take that as some historical evidence that the Israelites are the Royal families of Britain!

There is no historical evidence of any migration by the ten lost tribes.

Of the side against it, I've seen anger and outrage, but little else.

Well, you haven't been looking to hard.

My question is now, and was then, and continues to be, why is it considered bad? I can't claim to be a BI, but I see some of the evidence presented as valid. It would seem that, in past debates, the sum argument against the notion that th e 10 tribes migrated to Europe has been to simply accuse the proponents of "British Israelism". So, I ask, why is that bad? Have they killed any Jews or advocated killing them (except for a few radicals, of course, there are always radicals in all things)? Have they taken any physical harmful action? Just what is the hype about?

British Israelism is simply nonsense and an attempt put the British/Americans as the center of God's Plan, being blessed as Israel, instead of simply acknowledging the fact they are blessed as Gentiles because they blessed Israel.

Now, I have made it clear that just because one believed in British-Israelism that made them anti-sematic, only that there were variants in it that were and it seemed to lead its adherents to Legalism instead of the Gospel of Grace.

Based on those who have admitted to following this view, that opinion seems justified.

Now, I could provide you with links to anti-British-Israelite writings that explain the historical and Biblical fallacies of it if you would like.